1/31/2024 0 Comments Shroud of turinYou would think if anyone could copy the Shroud, the British Museum could. He said if the museum accepted the challenge, he would place a million dollars in a legal holding account pending the outcome. Rolfe’s challenge might have seemed like a stunt, but it was serious. ![]() And if you can, there’s a one-million-dollar donation for your funds.’” The Museum oversaw the carbon tests on the Shroud and Rolfe explained: “They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: ‘Well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. Only days before the new dating results were announced, one of the main players in the drama, British filmmaker David Rolfe, issued a million-dollar challenge to the British Museum to replicate the Shroud. Experimentĭebate about the Shroud has been going on for centuries, provoking heated exchanges, revealing a tortuous trail of evidence full of unexpected twists and turns, and prompting more unanswerable questions than any other artefact in history. In addition, an immense body of other evidence suggests the cloth, which appears to carry an image of Jesus’s crucified body, is genuine. Some people would have been surprised, but not anyone who had been following the build-up of evidence indicating the Shroud is authentic.Ī total of four tests have now dated the Shroud to the first century. This dating contradicted a 1980s carbon dating that suggested the Shroud was from the Middle Ages. 1 do not constitute valid evidence that the Shroud originated in the 14th century or constitute valid evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.In April 2022 new tests on the Shroud of Turin - believed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ - dated it to the first century. The conclusion of this evaluation is that the experimental results discussed in Ref. The conclusion also does not necessarily follow from the experimental results because the alleged inconsistencies are more likely to indicate our lack of understanding of the process before, during, and after crucifixion or result from inadequacies in the experimental procedures. ![]() This research has led most Shroud researchers to reject the view that the Shroud originated in the 13th or 14th centuries, contrary to the conclusion in Ref. As a result, this evaluation next considers the impact of presuppositions on the results of research, and a summary of previous research on the Shroud of Turin. 1, the alleged contradictions point “against the authenticity of the Shroud itself, suggesting the Turin linen was an artistic or ‘didactic’ representation from the XIV century.” There is nothing in their BPA analysis to indicate the century that the Shroud originated, so the authors evidently based this 14th-century date on their view of previous research on “the historical records, the radiocarbon dating, and the chemical analysis” of the Shroud. As concluded in the last paragraph of Ref. The paper identifies two alleged inconsistencies between the results of the experiments and the blood on the Shroud: 1) the blood on the back of the left hand compared to the forearm, and 2) the blood on the lower back compared to the location of the side wound. This is followed by a description and evaluation of the six experiments involved in the BPA. The main conclusions are then considered, including possible explanations of the alleged inconsistencies. The general problems with this type of analysis and the specific problems with the experimental procedures in Ref. Several elements are included in this evaluation. ![]() This paper on BPA of the Shroud is evaluated to determine the soundness of its methods and conclusions. A “BPA” is a bloodstain pattern analysis. The paper is titled “A BPA Approach to the Shroud of Turin” by Matteo Borrini, Ph.D., and Luigi Garlaschelli, M. This is an evaluation of a paper published July 10, 2018, in the Journal of Forensic Sciences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |