Posted on 12/03/2016 9:15:33 AM PST by marshmallow
Why would they test a newer part of the cloth instead a piece of the oldest part? That doesn’t make sense.
BTTT
Start reading at Romans 1:20 and read on for awhile.
Pay particular attention to 1:20 - I took that verse to heart - it’s been a good thing to think about for years.
It doesn’t make any sense if you wanted to carbon-date the Shroud, no.
But that’s what they did.
They carbon-dated a patch left from a (IIRC) 14th Century fire - a fire that also suffused the rest of the Shroud with 14th Century carbon smoke.
I get it when Christians inevitably make this point on these threads. But the point is, true science really does point to God. It’s evidence of His methods and laws in this material universe. Our faith should not be based on evidence but evidence is certainly exciting to see.
True, those that base their faith on these things will ultimately disappointed - faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Faith doesn’t come by science...
It was skillfully woven in and wasn’t immediately discerned as newer.
More miracle mongering. Gibbon reports enough pieces of the “true Cross’ were sold so that they would float a fleet of wooden ships.
Amen and Amen!
Yes, it seems that they (unknowingly) extracted both newer and old fibres at the same time, and the presence of the newer fibres in the sample distorted the results.
A later examination carried out in Padua on an old fibre apparently dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD.
The actual number of claimed pieces of the True Cross were meticulously measured by a French scientist.
They summed up (IIRC) to about 2/3 of a cross.
Wonderful news.
ping
The Carbon 14 testing was performed on tiny swatches taken from edges that had been repaired after the shroud was damaged in a fire during Medieval times in Italy. All other data, such as the pollen, blood stains, and the lack of any pigments all point to the image being formed by a massive burst of energy, and the cloth originating in the first century somewhere in the Levantine coastal region (i.e. Judea). Most relics are easily explained and the team of scientists who examined it were confident it would be proved a clever fake. Didn’t happen.
I found the details. The Frenchman was Charles Rohault de Fleury, and the total amount of slivers of cross he measured came to 240 cubic inches.
Nowhere near even 2/3 of a whole cross - I don’t know where I remember that figure from.
The shroud has not been hermetically sealed the whole time.
Uh, huh.... and if one draws the parameters even wider, one can make this look even more ridiculous; e.g. all cats have four legs, all dogs have four legs, therefore this is consistent with the hypothesis that all dogs are cats.
But electromagnetic radiation emission from slabs of rock is not something as ubiquitous as corn or legs on mammals. Neither is it "mysterious-sounding". It's a specific, measurable parameter.
The critical issue here, is the location of the radiation. If it is centered on the stone on which Christ's body is purported to have rested and it is not detected two feet to either side of this stone, or if it diminishes with distance from this stone, that is important and significant information. On the other hand, if the entire tomb or a wider area around it is emitting radiation and there is nothing specific to the burial stone, that would diminish interest in this phenomenon.
Therefore, the current situation can be summarized as follows; scientists have previously postulated that the image on the Shroud of Turin may have been made by emission of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic disturbances are indeed detected on the burial stone (but not on other stones in the vicinty.....).
This, therefore, supports but does not prove the hypothesis regarding the Shroud's origin.
It would if you wanted the "data" to support your predetermined conclusion, which is apparently the case...
the infowarrior
How many watts would it take for a space ship to make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs?
You obviously didn’t read Romans 1:20. Read it and see - We are in agreement and you don’t know it!
My point is, we don’t need special “proof” other than what God has already supplied.
The constant searching for miracles never stops! Read what Jesus said about the demands for a sign.
http://christian-apologetics-101.blogspot.com/2007/05/supernatural-vs-natural-inquiry-from.html
The argument from miracles. David Hume points out that many different religions have their own miracle stories.
Given that there is no reason to accept some of them but not others (aside from a prejudice in favor of one religion), then we must hold all religions to have been proved true — but given the fact that religions contradict each other, this cannot be the case.
But it’s a kind of a circular argument, isn’t it?
His stronger argument is, if there is a natural explanation for something, over a supernatural explanation, go with Ockham’s razor and accept the explanation that is within our experience. Of course either believers or disbelievers in the shroud as authentic could say this supports their position:
“I believe in holy relics/I disbelieve in holy relics.”
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.