Maybe, but, as we have seen in this conversation, the 1988 carbon dating study is not reliable neither. And if you now look at all the many other remaining evidence regarding the dating, you will see that they congruently point to a date as old as the first century AD.
Here you aređ
The Shroud tells us that the man that was buried in the Shroud âwas crucified in a similar way to Jesus who underwent a very unique kind of crucifixion including
- Being crowned with thorns (pertinent to the charge leveled agains Jesus to be âking of the Jewsâ â Jn 19:2-3)
- Being flogged (which Pilate ordered for Jesus before presenting him to the crowds â Jn 19: 1-5)
- Being pierced in the side by a spear similar to a Roman pilium (which was thrust into Jesusâ side to assure that he had already died â Jn 19: 34)
In addition to the above 3 unusual elements pertaining to the crucifixion per se, the Shroud suggests that the man of the Shroud, as recorded in the Gospels
- didnât stay wrapped up for long because no sign of putrefaction has been detected on the Shroud (Jesus only stayed buried for 3 day)
- has been tortured for a long time before being crucified. Indeed, blood particles obtained from the Shroud reveal a high bilirubin content, which is a substance produced by the liver in response to extreme trauma. Note that this observation is significant for another reason explained below by Barrie Schwortz, a mumber of the STURP study:
âFor 17 years I refused to accept that the Shroud was authentic. The last argument holding me back was related to the blood. The blood on the Shroud is reddish, but blood on a cloth, even after just a few hours, should turn brown or black. I had a conversation with Alan Adler, a blood chemist, on the phone and I shared my reservation. He got upset and asked, âDidnât you read my paper?â
He had found a high content of bilirubin on the Shroud, which explains why the blood on the Shroud is red. When a man is beaten and has had no water, he can go into shock and the liver starts pumping out bilirubin. It makes the blood stay red forever. It was the last piece of the puzzle for me. I had nothing left to complain about. Sometimes I wonder why I hadnât asked Alan Adler that question 17 years before, but I guess I wasnât ready for the answer back then.
Although this was the final evidence that convinced me, it is no one particular piece of evidence that proves the Shroud is authentic. The entirety of evidence indicates that it isâ.
1 Like
I did not see this. That carbon date seems reliable.
The test is reliable but the sample was not representative of the original shroud. It had dyed cotton repair fibers mixed in. One of the original testers confirmed this and changed his position.
The raw data also confirmed this as there was a lot more variation between labs and the shroud measurements versus the controls.
1 Like
@colewd has already answered you (see above). If you want reference, you will find two at 79.
The claim is that it has been used to date the the âshroudâ.
How would we know it was a forgery? What known examples of cloth images miraculously created by the resurrection of an incarnated god to we have for comparison?
Thatâs just a conspiracy theory pushed by religious zealots butthurt over the debunking of a cherished relic. There is no truth to this claim.
1 Like
Source?
EDIT: Never mind, Bill. I found the source of Ramseyâs actual statement. To what should be no oneâs surprise, his position is misrepresented by the âshroudâ conspiracy mongers (my bold):
The research continues because the effect of the specific storage conditions of the Turin Shroud have yet to be reproduced by John Jacksonâs team. It remains possible, though not at all likely, that in these specific conditions there are reactions which provide significant contamination. There are also other possible types of contaminant, and it it could be that one, or some combination of these, might mean that the Shroud is somewhat older than the radiocarbon date suggests. It is important to realise, however, that only if some enriched contaminant can be identified does it become credible that the date is wrong by 1000 years. As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.
There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow and so further research is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing. It is equally important that experts assess and reinterpret some of the other evidence. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the Shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information.
http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/shroud.html
Always check your sources, Bill. It will save you from embarrassing episodes like this.
2 Likes
I donât think it is wise for Christians to be defending the legitimacy of the shroud, for reasons similar to this:
If someoneâs faith is dependent on the shroud, or even supported by it, I am not at all sure that it is â in fact, Iâm pretty sure that it is not â a good idea. If it is definitively demonstrated, if it hasnât been already, to be inauthentic (to say it gently), then where is their faith? It was not well-founded to begin with, and God wants our hearts, not a faith thatâs based on externals. (Note that I said âbasedâ, and not that legitimate externals donât support it.)
4 Likes
Right, but Iâm just claiming what I said. IR/Raman spectroscopy is a very appropriate tool to investigate historical artifacts. It can be used to help in the determination of the age an artifact based on the chemical components. For instance, they may help determine if the shroud was âpaintedâ on, and if so, whether the paint was typical of the hypothesized time period. IR/Raman can also help investigate the cloth itself.
Thatâs certainly not what I was talking about. I was merely talking about determining whether it was plausibly a burial shroud from 1st century Israel, or perhaps a later burial shroud assumed to be 1st century, or even an intentional forgery from much later. If itâs really from the middle ages, thereâs no point in asking if it could be from Jesusâs burial, right?
2 Likes
@Faizal_Ali: You say âThatâs just a conspiracy theory pushed by religious zealotsâ
Ray Rogers who published in peer reviewed journal on dating sample is not a religious zealot.
Bill, youâre really basing all of this on a press release?
1 Like
I guess Iâll take your word for it.
No. I was just showing Fazil there was a counter argument to be considered. It looks like there was mixed ancient and newer repair fibers in the sample.
This appears to be without support. The samples taken have dyed cotton mixed with older fabric. Watch the video provided above where the dyed cotton is identified in the samples.
From abstract of Ray Rogers 2005 paper.
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
Oh, so you have videos and press releases. Big deal.
Which of these words did you not understand? â(T)here is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.â
1 Like
An abstract isnât much deeper, particularly when the writer uses the verb âproveâ in a completely unscientific way.
In that case they should take a sample from an area that the Shroud supporters swear is original and get a new 14C date. Methinks this probably wonât happen. More importantly, why arenât the Shroud supporters clamoring for new samples to be taken for 14C dating?
2 Likes