Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Turin Shroud Older Than Thought

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
Cicero Donating Member (412 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:41 AM
Original message
Turin Shroud Older Than Thought
By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News

Jan. 25, 2005 The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to new microchemical research.

Published in the current issue of Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry peer- reviewed scientific journal, the study dismisses the results of the 1988 carbon-14 dating.

At that time, three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Ariz., concluded that the cloth on which the smudged outline of the body of a man is indelibly impressed, was a medieval fake dating from 1260 to 1390, and not the burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ.

"As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the shroud in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the shroud. Indeed, the patch was very carefully made. The yarn has the same twist as the main part of the cloth, and it was stained to match the color," Raymond Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratories and former member of the STURP team of American scientists that examined the Shroud in 1978, told Discovery News.

...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050124/shroud.ht...

...

It's interesting, at the very least. Although I am a Christian, I've always been wary about those who try to "prove" the divinity of Christ. I've always thought that you were supposed to have faith.

That having been said, it does raise some fascinating questions. The article states the Shroud is anywhere from 1300 to 3000 years old. It certainly puts it in the timeframe, anyway...

Regardless of what you believe about the divinity (or even historical existence) of Christ, you must admit the article is interesting. I wonder if we'll ever figure out just what the Shroud is...

Later,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LibInternationalist Donating Member (861 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. short answer
no, we won't ever figure out just what the Shroud is, unless we get time-travelling wormhole cameras a la Arthur C. Clarke's The Light of Other Days

this whole debate over the age of the shroud is really confusing the issue, because its age has nothing to do with its divinity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:56 AM
Response to Original message
2. There is more to carbon dating an article than just carbon dating.
The article is physically examined to see if it can be placed in the appropriate time period. For instance, in the case of the Shroud, the weave was examined. The weave is consistent with the carbon date. This herring bone weave did not exist at the the time of Christ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. the bible proves the shroud does not show an image of Christ
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 10:58 AM by McKenzie
"And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself."

Joh 20 : 7

I don't want to be rude, but read your bible - the body was wrapped, not placed in a shroud.

http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk /

edited to stop the forum scripts generating a smiley
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bob3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. I would take this with a lot of salt.
this is about the 3rd attempt to refute the carbon dating of the shroud -the others did not stand up, it's a good bet this one won't either. For one thing, how familiar are chemists with carbon 14 dating procedures?

The shroud is a fake. A very interesting fake but a fake nonetheless.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Not only was a part of the shroud tested
But a sample of the image was also chemicaly analyzed and was found to be paint, that was common during the period of the carbon dating, and was not available 2000 years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McKenzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. art historians agree on that Dr.Phool
A huge amount of analysis has been carried out on the shroud, in the context of art history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ediacara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. So the dated portion is from "new" cloth?
Oddly enough that portion was the only part that the owners of the shroud would part with. If I had full access to the shroud, I would take pieces from all areas of the cloth (including the areas that show Christ) and date them all. I suspect however, that a dark ages date will result in all cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Dec 17th 2014, 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC