New Find May Shed New Info on Shroud of Turin

www.jpost.com...

They are going to use an older shroud that is 6000 years old to possibly settle the debate on the age of Shroud of Turin.

They show a photo of the shroud of Turin and have article of the shroud uncovered in the Judean Desert.
Do they have photo of the later shroud?

kacou

Im sorry i can't find a picture of the older shroud. I would love to see it also. I do know that it is in some Israeli museum so, I might be able to find a picture there.

A 1998 radiocarbon test dated the cloth from some time between 1260 and 1390 CE, ruling out any connection with Jesus.

Other studies suggested that the radiocarbon test was flawed and that the shroud was anywhere from 1,300 to 3,000 years old. Researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem have said that pollen and plant images on it put its origins in Jerusalem sometime before the eighth century.

So nowhere in the article other than its title is there anything to support the claim that it's 6,000 years old.

reply to post by eric52081


you could also search at the American Museum of Natural History in New York in 1998 the shroud was display.

Kacou

I really have no opinion on this artifact personally as I'm atheist, but if I were Christian I think I would be somewhat unhappy with the whole deal. The way the shroud's "authenticity" is being handled, represents a proverbial shot in the foot for Christianity from where I'm standing.

Think about it, they're using all these extremely complex and advanced scientific instruments to prove an issue of faith. Religion can't have it both ways, it can't say science is bad, evolution is a farce, the big bang is a lie, dinosaurs are a test of faith, there was a world wide flood where everyone was killed, all of these arguments that have science standing in opposition of, are wrong because in those instances the science doesn't back up the religious claim.

But when Christians can find a single instance where pure science can lend credibility to their faith, suddenly science becomes useful.

Like Dawkins alluded to in the God Delusion, if there was absolute, definitive proof that evolution was correct, that the theory of evolution had become the fact of evolution, Creationists would say;

"Bah! We don't need proof, we have our faith! In fact, if had scientific proof for Creation, we would not accept it because it would take something away from our faith, it would become the theory of Creation!"

That's of course absurd! If creationists somehow had hard, scientific evidence that creation as an act of God occurred in a totally literal sense in our history, they would be jumping up and down, rubbing it in the faces evolutionists till they rubbed their face clean off their head!

This is no different! If they do test after test after test for everything imaginable and every test shows that this is not the shroud everyone believes it to be, everyones just going to say; "Pshh! We don't need science to tell us the shroud is real, we have faith that it is! Science is wrong!"

So why are we wasting our time, money and effort to prove an issue of faith that cannot by definition be proven by science? If you start mixing faith and science, the blade cuts both ways and faith has to pay dues to science if it wants to take it out for a spin.

Can faith really (ab)use science to haphazardly attempt to prove historical instances of Biblical events? If so why can't science be used to debunk Biblical events, showing them as never taking place? Same science, why not?

[Please stick to the topic, the shroud and scientific evidence being sought to back up biblical events, I was only using creation/evolution as a parallel to this argument to lend illustration! I'm not actually debating it! I promise!]

reply to post by 1-Cent


If you tell the truth, then tell a lie, does everything you say become a lie? No. It just means that somethings you say have to be taken with a grain of salt. That is science to religion.

There is no debate over the age of the shroud. It's a forgery. There are facts and there are those who can't accept the facts. To the wishful thinkers it is a debate, to the rest that is silly nonsense.

Just adding something; When a Jewish person of that time died, they would be wrapped in over 100 pounds of cloth, spices, and perfumes, they were not covered in a blanket. The shroud of Turin is historically incorrect.


Just my 2 cents.