Posted on 01/26/2005 7:31:12 PM PST by ArcLight
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
The author dismisses 1988 carbon dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Interesting.
Shroud of Turin ping.
The 1988 tests were discredited long ago. The "scientists" who performed them turned out to be bigots who knew the answer before they asked the question.
Other evidence, such as pollen, puts the date back much earlier and associates it with the Holy Land.
It's between 1 and 1,000,000 years old. You heard it here first...
Very interesting. Thanks for the ping, AC. I was about to turn my computer off when I saw the title, and I was intrigued by it. I need to finish tomorrow's homework.
Have a great day.
187 comments here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1324044/posts
Shroud Of Turin - New Date?
I have researched some of the studies done on the shroud lately, and the consensus seems to be that it is older than the 1980s study suggests and that fiber and chemical analysis indicates the presence of plant material specific to the Jerusalem area. Of course, there will always be controversy surrounding the shroud as with any religious or "divine" relic, but its story is compelling.
read later
You have a great day, too. I'm about to turn my 'puter off, too! LOL.
ping
True. There was a compelling program on TV awhile back that pointed to the fact that pollen from plants found only in the Holy Land was on this shroud, etc. It is a mystery and it is always interesting to hear news about this subject.
"That led to the then Cardinal of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, admitting the garment was a hoax."
I guess this guy took courses in radiocarbon dating, antique cloth manufacturing, comparative anatomy, palynology and Ancient history while in theological seminary.
The ONLY claim that the Shroud doesn't date to the time of Christ is based on the radiocarbon testing. The radiocarbon testing, as pointed out in this and MANY earlier articles indicates the testing was flawed.
The degree of anatomical accuracy protrayed in the image was clearly beyond the knowledge of any Medieval hoaxer. Pollen sample indicate the Shroud was originally in the Middle East. Studies by fabric experts indicate it was produced in the Middle East at the time of Christ. Nobody has successfully explained how the image was produced - we can't make a similar image with modern technology at this point.
All of which provides as least as much circumstantial evidence that this is indeed the burial shroud of Christ as evidence that Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child - and probably a lot more.
At a time when a animal bone could be passed off as a body part of some dead saint to nearly anyone in Europe, why on earth would a Medieval hoaxer go to such detail to create such an image - not even considering the abilities of anyone to do so at that were non-existant.
This IS the real thing.
Why not simply wash the thing?
Agreed.
I have been studying data, research, books, etc, on the Shroud for over 40 years - it is not a thing to scoff at unless you too have done the same and can discount the hundreds of experts, scientists in several fields, including forensics, botanists, well - who have spent decades on this subject.
There will be increasing stories on the Shroud as the 2006 Olympics will be held in Feb 2006 in Turin, Italy, home of the Shroud.
You might find it interesting to "google search" for information on the Shroud. I could give you many www-sites, but I don't wont to bother anyone who doesn't want to be bothered with facts :O)
I too have visted many web sites on Sindology and read several books on the subject. Its beyond me at this point how anyone can come to any other conclusion.
If there ever was any doubt in my mind that Christ existed, and did rise from the dead, the Shroud totally dispelled it.
I'm not a scientist, but I've had my doubts about the radio-carbon dating due to the fact that the shroud was actually in a fire. Wouldn't that have affected the results?
But if the test sample was taken not from the shroud itself but the cloth used to repair it, then what was that supposed to have proved to begin with?
I find the shroud fascinating, but am not convinced one way or the other. I have always suspected that the original carbon dating was inaccurate. The carbon dating placed the shroud's age at approximately the same that historical records show the shroud was repaired after being in a fire. The fact that the British Museum never investigated the possibility that the samples could have been from the repaired area seems to me to indicate that they decided prior to beginning the tests that they would debunk the shroud once and for all, and found the results they wanted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.