|
|
Post by sandwiches on Mar 28, 2013 13:30:16 GMT
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.htmlExperiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.
The analysis is published in a new book, "Il Mistero della Sindone" or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and Saverio Gaeta, a journalist.
Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud, which is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin.
The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD. Well, that settles that, then?
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Mar 28, 2013 16:16:06 GMT
I am not into shroudie literature at all, but the report in the Daily Telegraph leads to more questions than it solves. Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud, which is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin.How do you date cloth using infra-red light and spectroscopy? The sources I checked only described it for minerals. www.geochronometria.pl/pdf/geo_34/Geo34_03.pdfusers.ugent.be/~pvdhaute/lumin.htm The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating.
Those tests, conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona, appeared to back up the theory that the shroud was a clever medieval fake, suggesting that it dated from 1260 to 1390.
But those results were in turn disputed on the basis that they may have been skewed by contamination by fibres from cloth that was used to repair the relic when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages.So the fibres that led to a C-14 dating between 1260 and 1390 and were supposedly taken from a mediaeval repair job now lead to a date between 300 BC and 400 AD? As an aside, how would a shroud, which supposedly is in some way wrapped around the deceased, become imprinted with an image looking exactly like a projection on more or less a plane? Anyway, if this will be this year's Easter hoax it looks like it'll be quite modest for a change. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 29, 2013 8:13:35 GMT
Anyway, if this will be this year's Easter hoax it looks like it'll be quite modest for a change. *Yawn* Stories where some loon from a discipline that has zero to do with dating or analysing ancient/medieval artefacts declares the so-called "Shroud" genuine based on some dubious new technique are as common at this time of year as Easter eggs. This is the usual "sindologist" crap. Nothing to see here - move along. |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Mar 31, 2013 1:17:46 GMT
"sindologist"  ? |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Mar 31, 2013 1:29:28 GMT
"sindologist" ? That's what the "Shroud" cultists call themselves. It sounds more scientific than "clueless dupe". |
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 13, 2013 18:46:07 GMT
(dup - see below)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 13, 2013 18:50:25 GMT
Hi Folks, The most interesting aspects of the Shroud of Turin that I have seen have to do with the blood analysis. And the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus brings forth the unusual situation where the normal male component is replaced by the Holy Spirit, making for a distinctive chromosome / DNA aspect. Note that this is not parthenogenesis, which, even if it occurs in mammals, brings forth a female offspriing. It is also good to study the various competing theories and understandings of the virgin birth. The one individual writer that I have found most compelling is Arthur Custance (1910-1985) of the Doorway Papers, and his writings including The Seed of the Woman.For those of you who are open to considering these aspects, really interesting considerations also have to do with whether the Sudarium of Oviedo matches up in this respect. And then for your most fascinating questions, whether this matches up with what Ron Wyatt reported  . Peter Kirk is one of the gentlemen who wrote about the Shroud issues on his blog (Gentle Wisdom) in a searching way, and interesting, a few years back, A, S, Haley, the Anglican Curmudgeon, has made it solid part of his blog. While my own view was historically non-Shroud oriented (I remember being satisfied with the dismissal in a Josh McDowell apologetics book) I have put that aside to being at least interested. On the other hand, for quite a while, probably pre-internet historic time, I have been quite sympathetic to the Ron Wyatt archaeology. Now I wonder if these are corroborative or mutually exclusive or independent situations (focusing only on the blood of Jesus question, this would not affect an independent analysis of issues like the Exodus or Sodom and Gomorrah.) Yours in Jesus, Steven |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 13, 2013 19:27:58 GMT
The most interesting aspects of the Shroud that I have seen have to do with the blood analysis. Has it been confirmed that the shroud actually contains blood? The Wikipedia article suggests this is still a matter of some debate.Er, what? Why would the normal male component be replaced by the Holy Spirit? How does that even work? Wyatt was a pious fraud. In the world of archaeology he had about as much credibility as a mountain gorilla. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 13, 2013 19:52:52 GMT
Hi, One key issue is the Marcello Canale study, which is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, so it seems to be a smidgen deficient. Er, what? Why would the normal male component be replaced by the Holy Spirit? How does that even work? How does the supernatural birth of the sinless Messiah work ? Wyatt was a pious fraud. In the world of archaeology he had about as much credibility as a mountain gorilla. And I am rather familiar with the Ron Wyatt dismissals and handwaves, along with various vitriol attacks. One irony is that the Exodus route he discovered (or, in a sense, rediscovered) is now very largely accepted even by many in your "world of archaeology". For that alone, in a fair archaeology world, he would likely be considered at least in nomination for the premier Biblical archaeologist of the 20th century. Yours in Jesus, Steven |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 13, 2013 23:02:40 GMT
One key issue is the Marcello Canale study, which is not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article, so it seems to be a smidgen deficient. Has the Marcello Canale study definitively confirmed the presence of blood? The birth wasn't supernatural. The conception was. And no, I don't know how the conception worked and I don't care because it doesn't matter. Mate, Wyatt's credibility was negligible even within his own church: ( Source). He was a well-meaning, delusional crank who made unsubstantiated claims and fabricated evidence to support his theories. Proof, please. How are you defining 'very largely accepted'? If it's not accepted by the academic consensus, just how valuable can it be? Seriously? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 14, 2013 0:08:05 GMT
Hi, Has the Marcello Canale study definitively confirmed the presence of blood? The Peter Kirk blog discusses the Marcale study: A proof of the Virgin Birth? 30 December, 2008 by Peter Kirk www.gentlewisdom.org/950/a-proof-of-the-virgin-birth/Surely, there can be counterpoint to the study, however the evidence looks very strong that blood DNA from the two objects were used in the study. Here is a bit about the controversy, that goes beyond the Wikipedia section (which is not too bad, overall). More on the "Mysterious" Shroud by Jeff Messenger, Barkhamsted www.thevoicenews.com/news/2002-06-14/In_Response/005.html(11) At Yale, Heller and Dr. Joseph Gall discovered the presence of hemoglobin in the blood stain fibers, with the use of a microspectrophotometer. (12) The Bromcresol Green Test found serum albumin in the blood stains. (13) The "blood stains" were actually determined to be an "exudate" from clotted wounds. (14) A high level of bilirupin identifies the clotted blood as containing haomolyzed hemoglobin, which binds with bilirupin in the liver of people who are tortured. This chemical process explains the "unnatural red color" of the Shroud's blood stains. (15) Professors Pierluigi Barma-Ballone and Dr. Jerome Lejeune identified that the blood on the Shroud is real, type "AB." (16) Professor Marcello Canale detected DNA within the blood. To confirm this finding, U.S. scientists Dr. Victor Tryon and Nancy Mitchell Tryon also found human DNA as well. So when it comes to the "authenticity" of the blood stains, we have McCrone's opinion versus seven other scientists. ================ So I would say that it is hard to hold the position that there is not really any blood on the shroud blood stains. The birth wasn't supernatural. The conception was.. And I think it is a bit of a quibble to take the position that a birth with a supernatural cause, unique in all of human history, is not supernatural. And no, I don't know how the conception worked and I don't care because it doesn't matter. Did you find the Arthur Custance material interesting? Yours in Jesus, Steven Avery |
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 14, 2013 0:22:20 GMT
Hi, Mate, Wyatt's credibility was negligible even within his own church: If the SDA embraced Ron Wyatt, that would be used as a point of attack. We call that lose-lose argumentation, or both ends against the middle. He was a well-meaning, delusional crank who made unsubstantiated claims and fabricated evidence to support his theories. On how many controversies did you do more than run to a web-page? How many did you actually study? Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeological Review: "Jabal al-Lawz is the most likely site for Mount Sinai" (quoted in Newsweek, February 23, 1998. Shanks acknowledged the quote was accurate, while adding qualifications) ============ Hershel Shanks is probably more familiar with comparative Exodus theories than most anybody. Shanks is not known to be even a smidgen sympathetic to Ron Wyatt. Ron Wyatt is the individual who worked with the evidences around the Jabal al-Lawz idea in the 1970s (and The Exodus Case by Lennart Moller is available for those who want a fairly extensive review of the evidences) the first solid look at the site in the 20th century (in a sense, for thousands of years, there was some awareness in earlier writings). Today, everybody and their brother writes about the site, sometimes giving Wyatt proper acknowledgement, sometimes not. The Exodus is one of the premier issues in Biblical archaeology. "in a fair Biblical archaeology world ... " ============ Proof, please. How are you defining 'very largely accepted'? If it's not accepted by the academic consensus, just how valuable can it be? Very valuable. The academic consensus generally looks at the Bible as inaccurate, and a good chunk of that academy considers it a myth, such positions have their judgements reflecting their a priori positions. Your position is like asking the academic consensus to evaluate a creationary scenario, when a large chuck of the con is already convinced of a primordial soup. Or asking the textual criticism "consensus", using rigged apparatuses and special pleading logic and deficient sources, to evaluate "God was manifest in the flesh.." in 1 Timothy 3:16. And since you already have your answers, by five-minutes of web surfing, I have to obligation to engage in "prove it to me". Yours in Jesus, Steven |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 14, 2013 2:15:57 GMT
(11) At Yale, Heller and Dr. Joseph Gall discovered the presence of hemoglobin in the blood stain fibers, with the use of a microspectrophotometer. (12) The Bromcresol Green Test found serum albumin in the blood stains. (13) The "blood stains" were actually determined to be an "exudate" from clotted wounds. (14) A high level of bilirupin identifies the clotted blood as containing haomolyzed hemoglobin, which binds with bilirupin in the liver of people who are tortured. This chemical process explains the "unnatural red color" of the Shroud's blood stains. (15) Professors Pierluigi Barma-Ballone and Dr. Jerome Lejeune identified that the blood on the Shroud is real, type "AB." (16) Professor Marcello Canale detected DNA within the blood. To confirm this finding, U.S. scientists Dr. Victor Tryon and Nancy Mitchell Tryon also found human DNA as well. So when it comes to the "authenticity" of the blood stains, we have McCrone's opinion versus seven other scientists. 1. The presence of hemoglobin is not conclusive indication of human blood, or even of vertebrate blood. It is also found in non-vertebrates and some plants and fungi. 2. Most of the sources here are cited as simply finding 'DNA', without any details as to what that DNA was. Simply finding DNA does not mean human blood has been found. 3. Serum albumin is not conclusive indication of human blood; additionally, this paragraph does not even indicate whether the serum albumin was human, but since there's only one report of it that's fairly irrelevant. 4. Bilirupin is not conclusive indication of human blood, and since it is broken down by light, it is incredibly unlikely that bilirupin would be found at all. The shroud has been exposed to far more than enough light to destroy bilirupin. A conception with a supernatural cause is supernatural. A birth with a natural cause (pregnancy), is not supernatural. I found Custance quite interesting many years ago, before I discovered peer reviewed professional scholarly literature. Even at the time I had my doubts about his value. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 14, 2013 2:18:17 GMT
Hershel Shanks, editor of the Biblical Archaeological Review: "Jabal al-Lawz is the most likely site for Mount Sinai" (quoted in Newsweek, February 23, 1998. Shanks acknowledged the quote was accurate, while adding qualifications) But this is not remotely evidence for your claim that ' the Exodus route he discovered (or, in a sense, rediscovered) is now very largely accepted even by many in your "world of archaeology"'. But is the Exodus route proposed by Wyatt 'now very largely accepted even by many in your "world of archaeology"' as you claimed? The rest of what you wrote indicates a Fundamentalist position which comes into no contact with the reality of scholarly disciplines such as textual criticism. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 14, 2013 6:01:03 GMT
If the SDA embraced Ron Wyatt, that would be used as a point of attack. We call that lose-lose argumentation, or both ends against the middle. That is not true. The SDAs have a long and respectable history of high quality professional scholarship, particularly in the field of archaeology. Formal endorsement from qualified SDA academics would have been a huge boost to Wyatt's credibility. I have been familiar with Wyatt's work for at least 22 years. I actually found it credible at first, but the more I studied the more I realised he was just making it up as he went along. I don't. Isaac's conception involved supernatural intervention; would you call his birth supernatural as well? Not really. |
|
?
.
