The Shroud Of Turin

[Lewis]

Who here believes all that is said about The Shroud Of Turin ? Please post your thoughts.

Scientists "Jesus Rose From The Dead! " Astounding Proof!
[video=youtube;_voTiCTqv4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voTiCTqv4Q[/video]

No single artifact of the past has so exemplified the interface between science and religion as the Shroud of Turin. What are the facts and how do we separate the facts from both religious and scientific bias and agenda-based conclusions? First, we must separate the shroud from that which is responsible for bias, namely that it is the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and investigate it instead as a putative artifact of a first century crucifixion and burial. The shroud has been subjected to numerous scientific tests over the years culminating in 1988 with a radiocarbon measurement and dating procedure. The testing of the shroud and the conclusions reached lie basically in two areas, the physical shroud itself and the very unique image on the shroud.
Physical Examination of the Shroud
FACT:The shroud is a linen cloth measuring 4.6 x 1.1 meters corresponding to a standard measurement of 8 x 2 Philetaric cubits in use in Palestine during the first century. (see Whiston, W., Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, Winston. Chicago, p. 1008-1009)
FACT: The shroud is a herringbone twill with a 3:1 weave, of probably 1st century Syrian design. The flax fibrils contain entwisted cotton fibrils from a previous work of the loom. The cotton is Gossypium herbaceum, a Middle Eastern species not found in Europe. (Raes, G.: La Sindone, 1976; Tyrer, J. Textile Horizons, Dec, 1981)
FACT: The shroud contains pollen grains from 58 species of plants, 17 indigenous to Europe where the artifact has been for 7 centuries and the majority being plants indigenous, some exclusively, to the area of the Dead Sea and Turkey. These include Nyoscyamus aureus, Artemisia herba-alba and Onosma syriacum. (Frei, M., La Sindone, Scienza e Fide, Bologna, 1983; Frei, M., Shroud Spectrum International 3, 1982)
Conclusion: The linen of the shroud was manufactured and woven in the Middle East, most probably Syria, and is a design used in the 1st century, albeit uncommon and expensive.

 

[Lewis]

Well' I for one do not believe it Turin thing.

 

[Stan53]

I have mixed feelings about this shroud. From all scientific appearances, it seems real. The issue for me is that we are to believe through faith, not sight.

Heb 11:1 says; Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Also if you read John 20, carefully, you will note in verse 6 & 7; Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

If this is the case, as I believe it is, I don't know where the shroud originated as verse 6 says strips of linen, and verse 7 shows a separate cloth for Christ's head, so how would the head image show up on the shroud?

For years people have searched for Noah's Ark just as for years people have studied this cloth. I for one, do not NEED these to be real in order to believe that they happened and existed. None of us should put our hopes in their veracity.

 

[izzy]

I have to admit, I've been interested in the shroud for a while now. Some of the evidence is quite compelling:

1. The image is microfibers deep, meaning that shaving the cloth would remove the image. Two major ideas floating around of how the image was made include a chemical reaction with starch on the surface of the fibers and darkening of the cloth by some form of radiation. The chemical reaction would be a neat and tidy answer since we know that starch can react with things like iodine to form a dark compound, but why haven't we seen this kind of reaction before now with a body? If it was radiation, then the body would have to be the source of the radiation. The other problem with radiation is that it would not give a nice shaded image, but either a silhouette or a blur depending on whether the radiation traveled straight or diffused.
2. The blood on it has been verified to be actual human blood. Why hasn't it blackened with age? I read one paper saying that there is a chemical produced by the body under severe stress over a prolonged period of time that will keep blood from blackening. Not sure if that has been verified or not.
3. The image was produced by a 3D object (a body) as indicated by depth analysis of the image.
4. The marks of the crucifixion are forensically correct and the lashings on the body are consistent with a Roman whip, just as the Gospels recorded Christ suffered. There is a line of puncture wounds around the top of the head and a gaping wound in the side. Also, the face is slightly swollen, but the legs are not broken.
5. There is a strip on the side of the cloth that appears to have been cut off at one point and resown back on. This strip might have been used to tie the body together in the linen. Also, there is a cloth called the Sudarium of Oviedo, about the size of a hand towel, with blood stains that seem to match the image on the shroud. This may be the head cloth mentioned in the Gospel of John.
6. Around the feet, there are traces of dust and pollen including pollen from a flowering cactus found only within a 50 mile radius of Jerusalem.

The main piece of evidence that stands against the shroud is the carbon-14 dating. That dating was done from a corner of the cloth that was touched repeatedly and may have even been part of a medieval era repair to the cloth. I would like to see another carbon-14 dating done using a section closer to the center of the cloth.

The other concern is the theological ones. Most artifacts that became idols were eventually destroyed, ie. the bronze snake in the wilderness made by Moses and destroyed by Josiah. The Shroud of Turin has been idolized in the past and still is today. Interestingly enough, that bronze snake was also a "picture" of Christ and for those who truly understood its significance, it pointed to the coming atonement of Christ. Might this also be true of the shroud?

Will the Shroud of Turin make or break a person's faith? No. Eternal life is to know God (John 17:3). You don't know God personally through examination of the shroud, but for a seeking scientist, it might be another piece of evidence that propels them towards a relationship with God. It certainly provokes a lot of talk in the scientific world and even Richard Dawkins mentioned that the carbon-14 dating has been called into question in his book "The Greatest Show on Earth." As long as the Shroud of Turin is not used as an idol, I don't see the harm in it.

 

[Lewis]

Carbon dating is not accurate, and that has been proven.

 

[DarkHorseRising]

Carbon dating is not accurate, and that has been proven.

In what study? My understanding (along with the archaeology community) is that if properly calibrated, you will get a fairly accurate result due to the known constant decay of C14. Have there been studies published to refute this?

 

[Stan53]

In what study? My understanding (along with the archaeology community) is that if properly calibrated, you will get a fairly accurate result due to the known constant decay of C14. Have there been studies published to refute this?

First of all, we have to remember and take note that God created the WORLD totally mature. No babies. Man was fully mature when created, as were all the animals and plants. So if He created the living things fully mature, it is highly probable that He did the same thing with the earth. Knowing what we do know about the geophysical nature of the earth, which God created, it would not be unlikely that God created it with a certain age, just as He did Adam & Eve and every other living thing. In God's creation, the chicken definitely came before the egg.

The second issue is carbon dating. Like the theory of evolution, the theory of carbon dating is also flawed... please see the following web-page; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Our faith in God's Word should never be impacted by any kind of science. A close look will always reveal God's truth.

 

[reba]

This will sound dumb but thats me..

One of the reasons i dont believe the shroud is of Christ is the image looks too much like the paintings of the 'masters'....I dont believe Jesus looked like that.

God did not leave us with things. He left us with hope, love, teaching understanding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit not things

 

[Stan53]

This will sound dumb but thats me..

One of the reasons i dont believe the shroud is of Christ is the image looks too much like the paintings of the 'masters'....I dont believe Jesus looked like that.

God did not leave us with things. He left us with hope, love, teaching understanding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit not things

Again I'm not sure one way or the other but the following webpage at History.com is interesting to say the least. The video of the show seems to not be available to free viewing. I did see the episode when it was broadcast back in March.

http://www.history.com/shows/the-real-face-of-jesus/photos

​

 

[Lewis]

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods

A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 metre race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 metre race?
When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” You cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.



Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the edge at the end of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need at least two, sometimes three judges to measure the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books.


It would make no difference how accurate or high-tech the wristwatch was. You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.


But without reliable witnesses the accuracy of the watch makes no difference. You can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more qualified eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish.
This illustrates the whole problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they omit discussion of the basic flaw in the method: you cannot measure the age of a rock using radioactive dating because you were not present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and you did not monitor the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.


If you check this educational page by the US Geological Society you will see that they spend all their time talking about the technicalities of radioactive decay. But they do not even mention the basic problem that you cannot know the radioactive concentrations that existed in the rock in the past.
In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab (see Dating secrets).
Tags: Age of Earth, geological dating, Radioactive dating
The theory of carbon dating is interesting, but there are inherent problems with the presumptions upon which it is based.


Used to estimate the age of ancient artifacts and human and animal remains, radiocarbon dating is regarded by many as one of the miracles of modern science. Some, however, have serious doubts about the credibility of this technique.

Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the amount of normal carbon that is found in a sample with the amount of radioactive carbon. Both carbon and radioactive carbon are found in every living organism. While carbon is quite prevalent in these organisms, radioactive carbon is present only in tiny amounts. Some contend that the relative ratios of carbon and radioactive carbon that are found on the earth have remained constant over time and that, using known rates of decay; we can estimate age on the basis of changes in this ratio in a particular artifact or remains.

Radioactive carbon is absorbed by living organisms throughout their entire life. When the organism dies that absorption stops and the radioactive carbon begins to break down. Because this break down occurs at a known rate it is theoretically possible to compare the amount of regular carbon and the amount of radioactive carbon and estimate just how long an organism has been dead.



Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities.

While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that.



Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth's magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact.

The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.

 

[stormcloud]

I can't speak to the reliability of carbon dating in general, however, it has been discovered that the piece of cloth taken from the shroud for carbon dating was actually a piece of a patch that was added to the shroud later and not part of the original cloth.