Turin Shroud may be genuine after all

UPI via The Washington Times ^ | 10/9/2002 | Uwe Siemon-Netto

[SteveH]

GURAT, France, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- The Turin Shroud bearing the features of a crucified man may well be the cloth that enveloped the body of Christ, a renowned textile historian told United Press International Tuesday.

Disputing inconclusive carbon-dating tests suggesting the shroud hailed from medieval times, Swiss specialist Mechthild Flury-Lemberg said it could be almost 2,000 years old.

[Swordmaker]

I did. They are tantamount to saying that radiocarbon dating never works.

It is not logically possible for anyone to counter every conceivable argument (about anything, not just about this one quantitative question). There is always an "out".

I agree, Physicist, but that is why there are agreed on protocols that are supposed to be followed to the letter... which DID NOT HAPPEN in the case of the carbon-dating of the Shroud of Turin.

Incidentally, Carbon-dating is only as good as the reference date data provided for each area of the world. Actual carbon 14 : Carbon 12 ratios can vary drastically from area to area, depending on volcanic activity in the area, altitude, and a host of other reasons. For this reason, for C-14 dating to be accurate, it must be synchronized with KNOWN age samples FROM THE SAME AREA. This is usually done by dendrochronology where the use of tree growth ring comparisons extend the data into the past.

Unfortunately, the Egyptian and Levantine areas were singularly lacking in trees and what dendrochronological data from that area is extremely sparse. Egyptologists have instead used furniture and sarcophagus dating as the reference... and that is only as good as the accuracy of their assumptions... which have been proven to be flawed by D. Rohl, et al, by a couple of hundred years. I grant you that a couple of hundred years distortion in dates is not on the same level as the 1300 year discrepency in the C-14 date of the Shroud but it is just one more problem that rises in this particular investigation.

The original protocols were designed to minimize the "outs" that might be provided by the results... but when the protocols were ignored, then the results are rightly open to negation.

[Swordmaker]

As for the "insult of prominent scientists," etc., it seems to me that the people attacking radiocarbon dating are the ones who are doing that.

It might interest you to know that one of the most prominent voices objecting to the the protocols used and the conclusions of the Carbon-dating of the shroud is the very physicist who developed the process used.

[Swordmaker]

The modern idea of what Jesus looked like when he walked the earth began with the great German painter Albrecht Drurer (or Durer). He painted a picture of Christ and, since no one knew what Jesus looked like, decided to use his own face. Here is his self portrait:

Sorry, but that is not correct. The modern concept of the image of Christ actually started about the 5th Century with the Christ Pantocrater, a mosaic found in Turkey. The study of iconography has a lot to say on the appearance of Christ throughtout the ages... Durer was latecomer.

[MonroeDNA]

"Follow the shoe!"

[Swordmaker]

I debunked a demonstrably incorrect argument. Clearly I was out of line. :-/

Nope, you are not out of line... we need people to challenge the findings... all of them. Your math appears to be correct... the percentages of old to new carbon-14 are probably correct given your assumptions (We have no knowledge about the percentage of carbon extant in either the linen or the bioplastic residues - for example, linen may be only 10% carbon and the bio-plastic may by 90%, or vice verse, which would skew the math completely).

Now we need to go to the source and examine the actual observed percentages of original linen and its C-14 to the percentages of ancient to modern bioplastic micro-organism residue and see if they match your math.

I recall reading a peer reviewed article in which that exact investigation was done... and the report seemed to show that 2/3rds of the sample thread WAS bioplastic residue. I will have to go looking for that report. I believe it is on WWW.SHROUD.COM.

[Swordmaker]

Good reply, Phyz. Critical thinking is always good.

[Havoc]

But some people will do anything to destroy Christianity.

And some people would just as soon get to the truth of a matter than to take a claim on it's face when it isn't a matter of faith. You know, like say for instance the "we have the chair of Peter" claim. If asking a group to prove it's claims on matters such as this amounts to destroying Christianity, then what is Christianity worth? My faith doesn't rest on trinkets, gimmicks and claims - it rests on God and HIS word. I'm a Christian and not threatened by such a pursuit of the truth - why is it that it so threatens you?

[Swordmaker]

I, for one, would hang on any word that a textile historian has to say. How accurate is carbon dating on an item less than ten thousand years old, anyway?

Actually, carbon dating is not too much use on items older than 10,000 years. As to the accuracy of items from 400 to 7000 years old, it is usually very accurate (Plus or minus 25 years) IF there is a database of dating data for the geographical area the item to be dating is related to. If there is no database of known dated materials, then the accuracy is unknown.

[Havoc]

I'd be real careful about more or less referring to a bit of important evidence that God just may have left behind for those of us who don't just believe whatever we're told, as "crap."

I would be more careful presenting something and claiming it to be other than it is in the hope that people will put their faith in it rather than in God. Scripture doesn't say "here is the shroud. in it I am well pleased." How much damage has been done throughout history by getting people to put their faith in things later proven to be pious frauds. Let the evidence speak. If it's a fraud, it's a fraud. If it's real, it's real. But the weight of evidence should tell - not a wink and a hardy "trust me."

[Conservative til I die]

Why do you have to insult others and denigrate their beliefs? Is this what Christianity is to you?

[Conservative til I die]

Gee, and you wouldn't have an agenda, considering that the visual and physical aspect of faith are Catholic things, would ya now?

[Conservative til I die]

Ah, but that's the crux of the argument. The scientists with an agenda are out to put science vs. religion, so that unless something can be scientifically proven, it's bunk.

[Havoc]

The same people who protest the accuracy of radiocarbon dating when it serves the purpose will laud it as accurate beyond belief in other circumstances. And yes, I'm being purposedly evasive in pointing fingers because it doesn't just apply to certain among the religious community.

The thing missing in this conversation that amazes me is the matter of the credibility of those making the claim. It's not like this is the only claim they've ever made. Nor is there an absence of evidence re how they have acted with regard to the issue of claims in other cases. How is it that this seems to have escaped everyone to this point in the conversation. I'm a facts kind of guy. I want to know who's claiming it, what their background is and all the issues that weigh on the claim and their credibility. Is this not how things are handled in a court of law? Why do we settle for less here?

[Skooz]

Sorry, but it IS correct. The Christ Pantocrater just showed a skinny guy with a beard. Any skinny, relatively white gut with hair and beard would look like that. Drurer gave us a full portrait and gave the Western mind the picture we see when we imagine Christ.

[Skooz]

skinny, relatively white gut = skinny, relatively white guy .

Sorry.

[smith288]

Christianity isnt about a shroud.... I could care less if it was real or not, it is of the earth and not Heavenly...

People really should stop putting so much stock in an inanimate object that was never mentioned in scripture.

Proving this thing as a fake does nothing in regards to Christianity besides show how foolish people can be with placing so much value in it.

[ALS]

"Why do you have to insult others and denigrate their beliefs? Is this what Christianity is to you?"


Isn't that what you are doing to me? Let me ask you something. Say my religious beliefs included chicken blood, bones in my nose and voodoo dolls in caricatures of Jesus. Would you feel like insulting me and denigrating my belief? Be honest. I thought so.
My point is that you just think I'm insulting you. Fact is, I have no idea who you are. So relax and enjoy the days of your youth. God has it all under control. He even left some rules to live by. One just happens to be about icons.

.... you'll figure it out

[A CA Guy]

Thank you.

[Havoc]

Since when are they merely Catholic things? Would you like to step back and rethink your approach? Spare us the attempt at self martyrdome and address the argument. You'll save both of us a lot of time.

[smith288]

Historically, they claim Jews of that time frame werent tall skinny and have long hair... Take it for what its worth but here is what "experts" believe Jesus most likely looked like in his era.

To me, it doesnt matter what he looked like, there is no description of the man. What matters to me is that he died for me and you... †