Search Results
8/2/2025, 2:08:44 AM
>>511994986
>the x ray data is quite conclusive that the shroud is from circa 20AD PRECISELY when it’s claimed to be.
but thats literally the opposite of what happened. they radiocarbon dated three pieces of the turin shroud at three different labs in three different parts of the world, and all of them dated them to between 1260-1390
and then, for additional veracity, they carbon tested a genuine jerusalem shroud from the period afterward, the Akeldama shroud (which bore no resemblance to the Turin shroud), and were able to accurately determine it was from around the year 50. so it wasnt radiocarbon dating that was wrong, it was the fact the relic they were a testing didnt exist prior to the 13th century is all.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/turin358031
>the x ray data is quite conclusive that the shroud is from circa 20AD PRECISELY when it’s claimed to be.
but thats literally the opposite of what happened. they radiocarbon dated three pieces of the turin shroud at three different labs in three different parts of the world, and all of them dated them to between 1260-1390
and then, for additional veracity, they carbon tested a genuine jerusalem shroud from the period afterward, the Akeldama shroud (which bore no resemblance to the Turin shroud), and were able to accurately determine it was from around the year 50. so it wasnt radiocarbon dating that was wrong, it was the fact the relic they were a testing didnt exist prior to the 13th century is all.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/turin358031
Page 1