|
Posted on 04/10/2009 4:24:42 PM PDT by GOPGuide
New evidence suggests the Turin Shroud could have been the cloth in which Jesus was buried, as experiments that concluded it was a medieval fake were flawed.
Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).
At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.
snip
"Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken.
"It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."
In the video, made shortly before he died of cancer in March 2005, he said: "I came very close to proving the shroud was used to bury the historic Jesus."
This latest evidence, to be broadcast in The Turin Shroud: New Evidence at 8pm on Sunday on the Discovery Channel, is the latest chapter in the shroud's history.
For the last 21 years most have considered it to be a medieval fake, after the 1988 tests dated it as being made between 1260 and 1390.
The result overturned 10 years of hope among Christians that it was real, after the first scientific tests found evidence of blood and serum stains.
The earliest documented sighting of the shroud is from 1353, but last week a historian claimed in the Vatican's newspaper that she had found a "missing link" in the Holy See's Secret Archives proving the Knights Templar had safeguarded it during the 13th century.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
God doesn’t need special effects.
btt
Wow. If I remember correctly, Rogers was a pretty hard-core shroud skeptic.
The shroud is conclusively not a painted image and has properties that could not have been known in Medieval times. So if it is a Medieval fake how was it made?
...and Happy Good Friday.
...countdown to Guinness and chocolate has BEGUN.
Cheers!
Either extraneous contamination, or "chain-of-custody" will do.
And the Shroud has neither one -- it was around for hundreds of years before anyone radiocarbon tested it.
Cheers!
...and Happy Good Friday.
Not necessarily -- God or the Devil could've fudged the data in the latter case.
But people don't like to open that can of worms for a whole variety of reasons.
Cheers!
...oh, and Happy Easter.
It really doesn’t matter to me whether or not the shroud is a fake - I believe Jesus Christ died and rose again. A burial cloth is irrelevant to my faith.
Happy Easter, everyone!
Thanks for the ping! And a Happy Good Friday to you!
Rock is not carbon dated. C14 has a half life of about 6000 years; radioisotope dating is mostly accurate within the first 6 or so half lifes (~36,000 years for C14). Also, you have to remember, that even if the volcano erupted 200 years ago, the rock that emerged is as old as the earth.
Yes, he was, but he was also a real scientist, who was willing to look at the evidence, and the data, and open his mind to a different conclusion than the one he'd drawn from the 1988 test results.
We saw this show last year, and it was excellent!
the question is, does it matter if it was a medievel fake or two thousand years old, who is to say that it really is the visage of christ?
As old as the earth? Why stop there? We’re talking formerly molten lava, here. I though argon was supposed to be the problem, making it look “too old.”
|
Thx!
You are not remembering correctly. Raymond N. Rogers was a member of STURP and a real scientist. What he stated was that when the C14 tests reported ages of 1260-1390, he accepted the findings. He was not hard core as a skeptic and many of the discoveries about the chemistry on the Shroud are his. He was a stickler when it came to the various theories about WHY the C14 tests were wrong (as was I) and would vigorously point out the failings in critiques of the various theories propounded.
He THOUGHT he would be able to experimentally prove that the two scholars, Susan Benford and Joseph Marino, non-scientists, were wrong about their theory of a medieval invisible patch in the sampled area. His tests proved just the opposite of what he thought he would prove. He proved that although the main body of the Shroud is made of Linen from the Flax plant, the area tested was a mixture of original Linen and COTTON dyed to match the original cloth.
“Ask them about integrity of the sample.”
Agreed. Belief in the Shroud as the burial shroud of Jesus is just that — belief.
But so is evolution, because it has all the same problems you mentioned.
By "integrity of the sample" I was referring to contamination of the Shroud during the many years before it was available for radiocarbon dating; and various incidents during its lifetime, such as its being boiled in oil (IIRC) by folks hundreds of years ago to try to remove the image.
Such things do not make for good forensics -- the oil may have removed some of the Jerusalem area pollens, making the evidentiary nature of the pollen's presence easier to challenge by those with an agenda.
Cheers!
Thank you ping. It just takes time, the more we learn the more real is the Shroud.
.
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.
