Shroud of Turin proven genuine by REAL science

Originally posted by VOW
-The image is of a crucified man
-All wounds on the image correspond to those of Christ
-The image is NOT painted on. It appears to be scorched into only the outer layer of the threads.

Click to expand...

The problem with these is that the image is not accurate. The face on the shroud could only have been produced if the body was flattened. Take a real, 3-D head, put paint on it, and wrap a sheet around it. Then take the sheet off. The image you get is not the same as the one on the shroud.

Man this is hard to explain without pictures. I'll try to did some up.

Originally posted by RCC
See: How accurate is Carbon-14 dating?
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html

Click to expand...

I love this:

"Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere -- plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating -- for example, very discordant "dates" for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated."


I can imagine a bunch of scientists going, "Silly me! I forgot to compensate for this 4000 yo global flood, for which we have no evidence that it actually took place."

RCC, do you honestly believe that scientists the world over would rely on such a method for dating relics of the past if it were so easily proven flawed? Do you seriously believe that?

Well, for starters, the cloth was exposed to a fire a couple of hundred years ago. Parts of the cloth were even burned. And you'll find that alone can skew the results of C-14 dating.

Click to expand...

VOW,

Please describe in detail the temperature the shroud was exposed to. Was the entire shroud burnt, or just portions of it? If there were un-burnt pieces of the shroud, why weren't they used in the C-14 method? At what temperature do the C-14 results begin to get skewed? Up to what point can you heat organic material and still have accurate C-14 results? How does the margine of error change, and at what tempratures?


Thanks,
John

How does scorching affect C-14 dating? An explaination would be helpful.

This should help.

 

http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html

All the photo's of the shroud of turin that I have seen show a mans face , and that man having long hair , I believe the jews never wore long hair .

 

1 Corinthians 11

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

 

I'm sorry if this offends anyone  ,  it's not my intention .

ol this hole post is a joke.

Click to expand...

What is a hole post?

Anyway, the C14 tests have been clearly refuted due to the organic growth on the linen and the fact that the Shroud was in at least two fires.

Similiar tests on mummy wraps from around 1000 BC yielded dates of around 300AD

Obviously, you cant use C14 to date this type of material.

The Shroud has been shown to not be a hoax, but hasnt been proven to be Jesus burial cloth. *shrug* I believe that it is, given all of the research I have done on it.

The problem with these is that the image is not accurate. The face on the shroud could only have been produced if the body was flattened. Take a real, 3-D head, put paint on it, and wrap a sheet around it. Then take the sheet off. The image you get is not the same as the one on the shroud.

Click to expand...

First, the Shroud wasn't wrapped. It was hastily drapped over Jesus, since Joseph of Arimetha wanted to finish the work before the Sabbath.

Second, there IS a distortion of the image. It looks wider than it should be if it were a painting. Look at my avatar...that is an artists depiction of the Shroud face with real proportions.  The Shroud image is wider and slightly distored, just like it would be on a real 3D face.

The image has 3D properties, which can not be painted, even to this day.

The image was most likely produced from a radiation "burn" similiar to the images found on walls of people that were in Hiroshima after the bomb hit their city.

Originally posted by Brian45
All the photo's of the shroud of turin that I have seen show a mans face , and that man having long hair , I believe the jews never wore long hair .

 

1 Corinthians 11

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?

 

I'm sorry if this offends anyone  ,  it's not my intention .

Click to expand...

What is "long?"  The Shroud image has shoulder length hair.  Besides, since when did Jesus worry about rocking the boat of Jewish tradition?

Thanks for the link, armageddonman.

From the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago:

"The carbon-dating results from three different internationally known laboratories agreed well with his date: 1355 by microscopy and 1325 by C-14 dating. The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century. Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.
Experimental details on the tests carried out at McCrone Associates or the McCrone Research Institute are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
Conclusion:
The "Shroud" is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic."

IF what they say is true, how come those mummy wraps that I mentioned were dated wrong as well, after going through the same testing procedures as the Shroud?

Originally posted by s0uljah
IF what they say is true, how come those mummy wraps that I mentioned were dated wrong as well, after going through the same testing procedures as the Shroud?

Click to expand...

Please provide sources and details.


Thanks,
John

Oh, and here is the first sentence from that site Bear...

"According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356."

That is blatantly false. The history of the Shroud goes back much further than the date given by the C14 tests.

 

--

 

AD 33

The Gospels record the life, death, burial, and the subsequent resurrection of Jesus Christ. The first historical evidence of the Shroud comes from the Gospels. So, we have eye-witnesses that place the burial cloth at the site of the tomb.

"Now after these things Joseph of Arimathea, because he was a disciple of Jesus (although for fear of the Jews a secret one), besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus. And Pilate gave permission. He came, therefore, and took the body of Jesus. And there also came Nicodemus (who at first had come to Jesus by night), bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, in weight about a hundred pounds. They therefore took the body of Jesus and wrapped it in linen cloths with the spices, after the Jewish manner of preparing for burial." John 19:38-40

"Simon Peter therefore came following him, and went into the tomb, saw the linen cloths lying there, and the handkerchief which has been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded in a place by itself." John 20:6-7

AD 33+

The Shroud was taken by one of the apostles to Edessa.

"In the Middle East, religious relics were a source of political status and power and often had a talismanic potency, being seen as protection of the city that owned them, warding off foreign invasions and natural disasters alike. Known as palladia, every city had such a holy prophylactic. In Edessa, it was the Mandylion." (cf: Lyn Picknett & Clive Prince, Turin Shroud, 1994)

The Mandylion, literally "little handkerchief" is also known as Akheiropoietos - "not made by human hands". These refered to the image of Christ on a cloth. While in Constantinople, the image was known as "The Mandylion", a Byzantine word.

AD 525

The Image of Edessa dissapears from history until a flood destroys Edessa. While rebuilding the city, the builders discover the secret chamber on the West Gate of the city where the Shroud was hidden.

AD 640

Arculphus was a pilgrim in Jerusalem where he saw and kissed the "winding-sheet of the Lord which was placed over his head in the sepulcher."

AD 800

St. John Damascene mentions the shroud as being one of the relics venerated by the early Christians of the time.

AD 942

The Byzantine general Curcuas captured Edessa. To avoid destruction, Archbishop Abramius of Somasata arranged that the town hand over the Mandylion. The image was then forcibly removed from the city. It was to be part of the Emperor’s huge collection of relics in the Pharos Chapel in Constantinople.

AD 944

The Mandylion arrives at the famous church of Our Lady of Blachernae. It was displayed in the throne in Blachernae.

AD 1204

Robert de Clari, a knight from Picardy, takes part in the capture of Constantinople. His reports describe the riches and relics he saw. Among them are the two pieces of the true cross, the head of the lance, two nails, a phial of blood, a tunic, and a crown. In a separate account he describes a linen cloth bearing the face of Jesus. (Later to be known as The Veronica from the legend that St. Veronica wiped the face of Jesus and the image of his face was imprinted on three parts of the linen.)

Another account talks of the Shroud in Blachernae: "And among the others there was a monastery known as Lady Saint Mary of the Blachernae, in which was kept the shroud in which Our Lord was wrapped; on every Friday this was held out, so well that it was possible to see the face of Our Lord. And neither Greek nor Frenchman knew what happened to that Shroud after the town was taken."

AD 1349

The shroud is venerated in the Cathedral of Saint-Etienne. A fire breaks out and the shroud disappears. It could have been stolen.

Originally posted by s0uljah
First, the Shroud wasn't wrapped. It was hastily drapped over Jesus, since Joseph of Arimetha wanted to finish the work before the Sabbath.

Click to expand...

But gravity would have still pulled the cloth down, around the sides of his face.

Second, there IS a distortion of the image. It looks wider than it should be if it were a painting. Look at my avatar...that is an artists depiction of the Shroud face with real proportions.  The Shroud image is wider and slightly distored, just like it would be on a real 3D face.

The image has 3D properties, which can not be painted, even to this day.

Click to expand...

But it is not distorted enough. The 3D properties show that something 3D (like a big stamp) made it, but they also show that a human body couldn't.

But it is not distorted enough. The 3D properties show that something 3D (like a big stamp) made it, but they also show that a human body couldn't.

Click to expand...

Imaging scientists using technology from NASA disagree with you. *shrug*

And these scientists published their work where?

I am addressing two claims here.

1) That fire altered the results of C-14 dating.

2) That modern organic contamination altered the C-14 results.

Also, how were the microscopy test skewed?

Originally posted by TheBear
Please provide sources and details.


Thanks,
John

Click to expand...

No problem.  This is the first thing I found searching the Net.  My original reference isnt a website, but you can get the point here:

"Field archeologists and historians, who regularly use radiocarbon dating, know only too well how anomalous radiocarbon dating results can be. Carbon-14 dating procedures are best used for testing organic archeological finds that have been left undisturbed and protected from the environment. It is also important, when possible, to obtain multiple samples at diverse places from an object to be tested and by statistical method determine a reasonable range of ages for the object. Yet, even with ideal conditions, carbon-14 results are sometimes highly erroneous. In one test, living snails - at least alive until just before testing - were found to be 26,000 years old. In another test, a newly killed seal was found to have died in 700 CE. Bone tools made from caribou ribs were once found to be twenty-seven thousand years old while a core sample from the innermost portion of the same caribou bone was found to be only 1,350 years old. The British Museum conducted tests on an Egyptian mummy in the Manchester Museum and found that her linen wrappings were 800 to 1000 years "newer" than her body. Other mummy samples have demonstrated this same peculiarity with cloth wrappings seemingly being newer than the bodies they contain. This could only make sense if the mummies had been rewrapped hundreds of years later. Egyptologist cannot support such supposition. "

http://www.shroudstory.com/essay/part19.htm

Also, please note:

"In the end, however, it is unlikely that anyone can prove definitively why or to what extent the tests failed. Because radiocarbon dating is not an exact science, archeologists and historians typically look for independent scientific and historical data to corroborate the age of any carbon-14 dated item. With the Shroud of Turin there is none. In fact, it is the opposite; a preponderance of evidence that argues against the carbon-14 dates."

To Bear:

The Shroud is NOT a painting, though. That much is known. The markings of the body are SCORCH marks. These markings were tested for all known pigments used as paint in the time frame of the discovery of the Shroud.

Plus...it's a negative image. In the 1300s there was no such thing as photography, and a negative image was unknown.

Yes, in C-14 dating, the sample is completely burned, and the residual carbon is tested for the proportion of C-14 to C-12. Using the known decay period of C-14, the date of the object can be estimated.

C-14 dating is based upon the concept of all living objects ingesting carbon as part of the diet. The amount of C-14 (radioactive carbon) remains constant as long as the living object is ALIVE. Once it dies, there is no more carbon ingested, and the proportion of C-12 to C-14 over time changes.

The linen of the Shroud is such an object which can be tested. Once the flax plant was harvested and the linen created from it, the ingestion of C-14 ceased. Cut a piece of that cloth, and test it for C-14, and voila, you can get a date.

HOWEVER: This piece of cloth was exposed to a fire. How hot? I personally don't know, but the wood and metal coffin the cloth was stored in caught fire, the metal started to melt, and the cloth was pulled out, with parts of it in flames. In pictures of the Shroud, you can see the diamond-shaped areas which were "mended" by the nuns. The burned portions follow the folds of how the cloth was laid in the box.

As for your reference, that's great. Scientists are going to line up on one side or the other, and counting experts isn't a valid way of "proving" anything. The fact that the fine folks at McCrone Research Institute say the image was PAINTED makes me cast a wary eye towards their "expert" opinion, because the image most certainly was NOT.

If your faith is based entirely upon whether or not this Image is a fake, then perhaps your faith is flimsy indeed. All I can offer is that *I* personally believe it is real. And even if a manufacture date is discovered somewhere on the thing, and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the thing is a bigger ruse than Milli Vanilli, that won't affect my belief one iota.

Faith, as always, goes by what's in your heart.



Peace be with you,
~VOW

Here is an animation of the distortion and what His face likely looked like: