Re: The Shroud of Turin

From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed May 29 2002 - 15:49:17 EDT

  • Next message: Loren Haarsma: "Re: The firmament--a barrier to concordism, various responses"

    Dear Louise,

    Only about one or two years ago I saw a NOVA special on it. I thought it was
    very good and they were pretty much still scratching their heads at the end.
    I remember they had one guy on there that was debunking every "proof" but he
    didn't sound very credible at all; he sounded like he had a personal reason
    to refuse to believe any of the data more than a professional one.
    Apparently it has recently been tested some more with some newer techniques.
    For example a pollen expert said it had definately been in the middle east
    and there were some surprising findings about that. I can't remember any
    details my memory doesn't work so well anymore. I'd advise you to look on
    their website, I bet you can still buy a copy. It had me convinced only
    because they couldn't prove it a fake, if someone faked it hundreds or
    thousands of years ago, I think they'd be able to prove it was a fake, way
    before now with our current science. Doesn't seem possible to me.

    Sincerely,
    Sondra

    >From: "Freeman, Louise Margaret" <lfreeman@mbc.edu>
    >To: asa <asa@calvin.edu>
    >Subject: The Shroud of Turin
    >Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 08:30:41 -0400
    >
    >I'm interested in the opinions of other scientists on this one. When I was
    >a
    >teenager I read everything I could get my hands on about this (of course,
    >that
    >was when my career goal was to be a professional Bigfoot hunter, but that's
    >another story.)
    >
    >As I grew older, I lost interest, though I remember seeing news reports
    >that
    >the Catholic church has officially accepted the results of radio-carbon
    >dating
    >that place the Shroud too recent to be authentic.
    >
    >So, in your opinion, is the shroud
    >A) the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, the image unexplianable by science
    >and
    >therefore an unmistakable "fingerprint" of the resurrection?
    >B) a fraudelent "artifact" created in the Middle Ages.. their version of
    >the
    >"day missing in time" myth?
    >C) something else
    >D) Jury's still out.
    >
    >Louise

    _________________________________________________________________
    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
    http://www.hotmail.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 29 2002 - 16:55:47 EDT