Posted on 02/25/2008 12:33:54 PM PST by BGHater
The Oxford laboratory that declared the Turin Shroud to be a medieval fake 20 years ago is investigating claims that its findings were wrong.
The head of the world-renowned laboratory has admitted that carbon dating tests it carried out on Christendom's most famous relic may be inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said he was treating seriously a new theory suggesting that contamination had skewed the results.
Though he stressed that he would be surprised if the supposedly definitive 1988 tests were shown to be far out - especially "a thousand years wrong" - he insisted that he was keeping an open mind.
The development will re-ignite speculation about the four-metre linen sheet, which many believe bears the miraculous image of the crucified Christ.
The original carbon dating was carried out on a sample by researchers working separately in laboratories in Zurich and Arizona as well as Oxford.
To the dismay of Christians, the researchers concluded that the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390, and was therefore likely to be a forgery devised in the Middle Ages.
Even Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, the then Cardinal of Turin, conceded that the relic was probably a hoax.
There have been numerous theories purporting to explain how the tests could have produced false results, but so far they have all been rejected by the scientific establishment.
Many people remain convinced that the shroud is genuine.
Prof Ramsey, an expert in the use of carbon dating in archeological research, is conducting fresh experiments that could explain how a genuinely old linen could produce "younger" dates.
The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday.
David Rolfe, the director of the documentary, said it was hugely significant that Prof Ramsey had thought it necessary to carry out further tests that could challenge the original dating.
He said that previous hypotheses, put forward to explain how the cloth could be older than the 1988 results suggested, had been "rejected out of hand".
"The main reason is that the contamination levels on the cloth that would have been needed to distort the results would have to be equivalent to the actual sample itself," he said.
"But this new theory only requires two per cent contamination to skew the results by 1,500 years. Moreover, it springs from published data about the behaviour of carbon-14 in the atmosphere which was unknown when the original tests were carried out 20 years ago."
Mr Rolfe added that the documentary, presented by Rageh Omaar, the former BBC correspondent, would also contain new archeological and historical evidence supporting claims that the shroud was a genuine burial cloth.
The film will focus on two other recorded relics, the Shroud of Constantinople, which is said to have been stolen by Crusaders in 1204, and the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus's body and which, according to John's Gospel, had such a profound effect when it was discovered.
According to Mr Rolfe, the documentary will produce convincing evidence that these are one and the same as the Shroud of Turin, adding credence to the belief that it dates back to Christ's death.
Where in the Holy Scripture does it mention a connection, other than that of disciple and Lord, between Joseph of Arimathea and Jesus?
Can’t they just detect the Jesus Particles on it? Come on!
BS. The site accurately reports the state of current research... unlike your skeptic sites. I find Daniel Porter's various shroud sites to contain accurate and accessible reports on highly technical papers done by practicing scientists. The information is taken from peer-reviewed scientific journals. i would not be surprised to learn that Daniel Porter wrote the article in Wickipedia... and the information on Maillard reactions in the Wickipedia is accurate.... you can find it in other chemistry texts and articles.
If you want to believe McCrone and his optical microscope... and his results that no other qualified scientists have been able to duplicate... fine. I prefer to follow the peer-reviewed science.
Therefore, using your logic, Tutankhenamen is a fraud because he was forgotten for over 3200 years.
Do you really realize how few documents we have from the first millennia? Books were published in the dozens, or hundreds... not thousands. And many if not most were lost. We only have some of the apocryphal religious texts today because they were preserved in out of the way locales and survived the destructions of various book burnings. Do you know how many of the Aztec Codex survived to today... and were only talking 500 years there. Even Vatican records only go back to around the seventh century with any completeness.
You can start here. The actual scientific papers are available on Barrie Schwortz's site: Shroud.com. Barrie was the official optical light photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978. Although still Jewish, the experience literally changed his life.
Please specify which things asserted that aren't true and provide your proof.
Sword, thanks for your patience with this newcomer.
Cheers!
McCrone's systematic errors as mentioned in the earlier post are damning enough (lack of controls, no independent replication, contamination of the sample with matrix material which would interfere with the test, nonspecificity of tests, confusion on his own conclusions); coupled with the fact that he was unable to get his work through peer-review, while A&H were; and finally, the fact that A&H used multiple independent tests from different types of measurement, all of which reinforced each other, makes the conclusions inescapable. The stains are human blood.
The only reason you accept McCrone is that it fits your preconceived notions, because you are afraid that any validation of the Shroud could lead to verification of the supernatural.
But as has been repeatedly pointed out, you don't have to go that far if you don't want to.
At that same time, at least you read the article, tho' with biases much in evidence: mental filters firmly on.
How do you feel about anthropogenic global warming?
Cheers!
Again, total mischaracterization.
I was refuting the idea that lack of continuity, or lack of direct physical corroboration, are themselves necessary and sufficient grounds to reject historical narrative: but that failure to reject a narrative outright need not imply blind acceptance -- there is such a thing as "wait and see." And Troy is a case where lack of direct physical evidence, coupled with 'unreliable' features in a narrative, would have led to the rejection of the story. Hence it remains a counterexample to the principle in general.
Cheers!
If God exists and you believe, you are saved. If He doesn’t and you believe, nothing is lost.
Yes, it is.
I am very sorry, MHGinTN... No, I'm not... I'm actually quite proud of it...
I demolished E. Raymond Capt on a previous thread on FreeRepublic that, unfortunately, has been deleted because of the antics of one of Capt's followers. I was so incensed by Capt's unscientific, unhistoric, idiotic claims that I spent a lot of time and some long distance phone calls tracking down his bona fides.
I demolished Capt by showing that his own biography on his now-defunct website was a tissue of lies... claiming degrees and honors he had not received from organizations that, in many cases, did not exist.
The tablets exist... but have been translated long ago and are merely records of commercial trades... not a history of the lost tribes of Israel.
Anything that Capt writes is probably just as inaccurate as his own biography. I would not give it any weight at all.
(Amusing side note: There is now another reference to the Accademia per L'Avanzamento di Scienza... and it points to an Italian page that is a translation of an English page that refers to studying the effects of Yiddish on the English Language... but the original English page is no longer valid. Funny... especially considering Capt strongly anti-Semitic works.)
We will never know if this is THE Shroud. It doesn’t come with a name tag.
But I believe the Shroud is a genuine relic of a crucified man and the manner of the imprinting of the image is, well, beyond the explanation of science at the moment.
Yuck.
Capt being short for captain ;-D
Ya de ya de ya.
Science DOESN’T lie, but testing methods are subject to human error and carbon 14 testing isn’t always precise.
Read about WHERE from the Shroud the samples were originally taken, read about the palynological and anatomical studies on the image. If this is a fraud, its the greatest job in history.
I believe your theories about Roman error burial practises among the Jews are incorrect and conflict with Biblical accounts.
John19:38 And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because of fear of the Jews, *besought* Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
Matthew 27:57 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
verse 58 He went to *Pilate*, and begged the body of Jesus.
Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.
59 And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,
And laid it in his own *NEW* tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
62-66 Tells that Pilate sat a watch over the tomb because that chief priest and Pharisees demanded it.
Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. (This word crave is Strong's Greek 154 can also mean; to ask; beg, call for, crave, desire, require)
44 And Pilate marvelled if He were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether He had been any while dead.
45 And when he knew it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
46 And he bought fine linen, and took Him down, and wrapped Him in the linen, and laid Him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.
Luke 23:50 And, behold, there as a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a good man, and a *just*:
51 (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: (dates back to Samuel) who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. (Joseph was also a member of the Sanhedrin and he took no part in the delivering up and demand for the death of Christ. God does protect His own.)
52 This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
Now Joseph of Arimathaea would have been required to show cause to be requesting of Pilate the body of Christ. Pilate did exactly what the Heavenly Father required of him to do.
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Ezekiel 34 is an interesting condemnation upon the shepherds of Israel. Verse 10 Thus saith the LORD GOD; ‘Behold I am *against* the shepherds; and I will require My flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.
11 For’ thus saith the LORD GOD; ‘Behold, I, even I, will both search My sheep, and seek them out.
Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, “I am NOT sent but unto the *lost sheep* of the house of Israel.”
Now historically and Biblically through Scripture that House of Israel was sent into captivity to the Assyrian king long before Christ came in flesh. It was their punishment and they were told that they would cease to know who they were but Christ knew who they were and that is to whom He sent His disciples.
Hosea prophet to House of Israel Hosea 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea,
“Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms:
for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.”
3 So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son.
4 And the LORD said unto him, “Call his name Jezreel: (Jezreel is a Homonym, having two meanings: (1) may God scatter (Jer. 31:10 and (2) may God sow (Zech. 10:9)
for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel (IIKings 10:15)
The rest of Hosea is mighty interesting what God wanted even us to know but God also had Amos the prophet to write Amos 8:11 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD GOD, that *I* will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thrist for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
Some would claim that even God Himself and His only Begotten Son were anti-semitic.
2 Corinthians 8:9 - “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.”
If your word study contradicts the Bible, then which one is in error?
hehe
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.