How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy

[Diogenes]

I just got an invitation to try "Pi" an AI program. I asked about the 'Shroud of Turin.'
I thought the conversation was interesting. The text below is complete and unedited except for adding color for clarity. The emphasis is mine:

"Pi
So Dan, what’s on your mind today?
You sent
I'm thinking about the Shroud of Turin
Pi
Pi
The Shroud of Turin? I'm familiar with it. It's the piece of linen with the alleged image of Jesus. Lots of controversy over whether it's a genuine artifact, right?
You sent
Right. I think it's a painting.
Pi
Pi
That’s a common theory. The main argument against that hypothesis is that it’s difficult to imagine a medieval artist creating the level of detail and artistry seen on the shroud. Still, others are not convinced. What makes you think it's a painting?
You sent
I don't think it has great detail. Medieval artists were capable of creating much more realistic images.

The eyes are much too far up toward the crown of the head. Eyes are at the midpoint of the skull. This is a common error in 14th Century artists.
Pi
Pi
That's an interesting observation. And you're right, 14th-century artists did make that mistake quite often. But some would argue that the lack of detail is a sign of authenticity - medieval forgers would have been more likely to exaggerate the details in order to make the image more convincing. What do you think about that?
You sent
I think they would be smart enough to not exaggerate and to make it look like it was natural. Think of how realistic Rembrandt and Boticelli painted. The artist here is trying to make it not look like a painting.
Pi
Pi
That’s a fair point. It does seem like the artist was trying to make it look as natural as possible. But what about the fact that the shroud shows signs of aging that would be difficult to fake? For example, the fibers have been damaged by heat and moisture in a way that is consistent with the shroud's supposed age. How do you explain that?
You sent
I dispute your facts. Everything I've read is consistent with the 14th Century date. It was painted 700 years ago and looks 700 years old
Pi
Pi
That's interesting. It sounds like we may be looking at different sources of information. I was basing my statement on the findings of scientists who studied the shroud in the 1970s. They concluded that the fibers had been damaged by heat and moisture in a way that would be consistent with the shroud's supposed age. What are your sources?
You sent
Yes, you are referring to the sturp scientists. Did you know they were biased. 3 Christians started sturp.
Pi
Pi
Yes, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was a group of scientists who were tasked with studying the shroud in the 1970s. They were all Christians, so it's fair to say that they may have had a bias in favor of the authenticity of the shroud. However, I think it's important to consider the evidence they gathered, even if they were biased. Do you think they did a good job in gathering and analyzing the evidence?
You sent
Initially, yes. But then they only let 3 labs do Carbon 14 dating. Sturp selected where the samples were taken from. Then STURP claimed the samples were not representative.
Pi
Pi
You make a fair point.
STURP did limit the number of labs that were allowed to study the shroud, and they did choose where the samples were taken from. I can see how that could lead to some suspicion about the results.
However, it's worth noting that the three labs that did study the shroud came to the same conclusion - that the cloth was medieval in origin. Do you think that's enough to outweigh the bias of the researchers?
You sent
It does not "outweigh" the bias. It confirms the bias. The 14th century date confirms it is not the shroud of Jesus.
Pi
Pi
That's an interesting perspective. So you're saying that the fact that the researchers were biased means that the results of their study should be disregarded entirely? What about the fact that other scientists who are not affiliated with STURP have come to the same conclusion about the shroud's age? For example, the British Museum and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. have both concluded that the shroud is medieval in origin. Do you think those institutions are also biased?
You sent
No. I think you missed my point. As you point out, ALL of the scientists agree the shroud is medieval. Jesus, if he lived at all, died 1400 years earlier. So how could the shroud image come from Jesus?
Pi
Pi
I see what you're saying. So your point is that, regardless of the bias of the researchers, the results of the studies are still valid. And since all of the studies indicate that the shroud is medieval in origin, that means that it couldn't possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus. Is that a fair summary of your position?
You sent
Yes, except that the researchers with the Christian bias claim the shroud is from the 1st Century CE
Pi
Pi
Ah, I see. So you're saying that, despite the fact that the evidence indicates the shroud is medieval, some people are still clinging to the belief that it's from the 1st century because of their bias. And that's why you think it's important to take into account the bias of the researchers when considering the results of their studies. Is that right?
You sent
Exactly!
Pi
Pi
Apologies, it appears Pi is away for the moment. Please check back again soon."

[oldbadger]

Ever notice how Christians will say, 'Christianity is clearly superior! What other religion has a Shroud of Turin, or proof that a guy named Jesus existed, or the claim that a guy died and rose again! If your religion doens't have that, it's not worthy of consideration." (There are other examples, in a more scholarly format, but I've made my point.

No, boats....... I've never heard anything about the shroud of Turin from Christian or anybody else in my life....until this thread. Once it had been carbon dated any interest in it just dissipated.

But, sure, Christianity does think that it is the only religion with access to their heaven, the only problem being that it's not going to be the beautiful place it's talked up to be.

Meanwhile, Mormon's say, "Sure, but do you have Golden Tablets? It can't be a real religion unless you got Golden Tablets."

Oh dear....do Mormons really say that? But they haven't got any golden tablets! Never had a single one. Nothing.

Each religion finds their uniqueness, then claims to be superior because of it. Ingroup, outgroup and fanciful thinking. Over and over, and they consider this serious....

That's not religion, but humanity....... Where I live we even have a problem with some government-services-receptionists.... visitors are not paying and so they can be considered as 'low-lifes'!! Humanity can be such a bigot, no?

[boatsnguitars]

Ever notice how Christians will say, 'Christianity is clearly superior! What other religion has a Shroud of Turin, or proof that a guy named Jesus existed, or the claim that a guy died and rose again! If your religion doens't have that, it's not worthy of consideration." (There are other examples, in a more scholarly format, but I've made my point.

No, boats....... I've never heard anything about the shroud of Turin from Christian or anybody else in my life....until this thread. Once it had been carbon dated any interest in it just dissipated.

But, sure, Christianity does think that it is the only religion with access to their heaven, the only problem being that it's not going to be the beautiful place it's talked up to be.

Meanwhile, Mormon's say, "Sure, but do you have Golden Tablets? It can't be a real religion unless you got Golden Tablets."

Oh dear....do Mormons really say that? But they haven't got any golden tablets! Never had a single one. Nothing.

Each religion finds their uniqueness, then claims to be superior because of it. Ingroup, outgroup and fanciful thinking. Over and over, and they consider this serious....

That's not religion, but humanity....... Where I live we even have a problem with some government-services-receptionists.... visitors are not paying and so they can be considered as 'low-lifes'!! Humanity can be such a bigot, no?

I was speaking rather casually. I can be more specific, and scholarly, if you like:

Christians:
Christians claim that several aspects of their faith are unique when compared to older religions. Here are some of the most significant ones:

1. Monotheism: Christianity is a monotheistic religion, which means that it worships only one God. This is in contrast to many older religions that worshiped multiple gods and goddesses.
2. Salvation through faith: Christians believe that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. This is in contrast to some older religions that believed in a complex system of rituals, sacrifices, and good deeds as a means to achieve salvation.
3. The Incarnation: Christians believe that Jesus Christ was God in human form, the divine made flesh. This is a unique concept that sets Christianity apart from other religions.
4. The Resurrection: Christians believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead after his crucifixion, which is a unique claim among the world's religions.
5. The Holy Trinity: Christians believe in the Holy Trinity, which is the doctrine that the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons in one Godhead.
6. The Bible: Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God and contains the teachings and history of God's relationship with humanity. This is in contrast to many older religions that had a collection of myths and legends that were passed down orally.
7. Archaeological Evidence and Historicity of Jesus: Christians believe Jesus was not another rising and dying god myth, but an actual person who actually died and rose. They believe archeological evidence supports the claims in the Bibles that root it in the real world.

For Christians, the historicity of Jesus is critical because their faith centers on his life, teachings, death, and resurrection. The belief that Jesus is the Son of God and that his life and teachings provide a path to salvation is a central tenet of Christianity. Without Jesus' historical existence, Christianity would not exist in its current form.

Mormons:
In contrast, Mormons believe many of the same things, but they have other specific beliefs that they argue makes their religion unique and the true religion.
For Mormons, while the historicity of Joseph Smith is important, it is not central to their faith. The Book of Mormon, which Smith translated and is considered scripture by Mormons, is the primary focus of their faith. While Smith's role as a prophet is essential to their beliefs, his historical existence is not as critical as Jesus' historicity is to Christians.

Christians may argue that the historicity of Jesus is more crucial than the historicity of Joseph Smith because the Bible is considered the inspired word of God and contains eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In contrast, the Book of Mormon is not considered to be the inspired word of God by Christians, and its historical accuracy has been a subject of debate among scholars.

Here are some of the unique beliefs that Mormons hold:

1. Restoration: Mormons believe that God restored the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the prophet Joseph Smith in the early 1800s. They believe that the church that Jesus established during his lifetime was lost over time due to apostasy and that the Mormon church represents a restoration of that original church.

2. Modern Revelation: Mormons believe that God continues to reveal his will to prophets and apostles today, just as he did in biblical times. They believe that their living prophet, currently Russell M. Nelson, receives revelation from God to guide the church and its members.

3. Book of Mormon: Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ and complements the Bible. They believe that the book was translated by Joseph Smith from ancient golden plates and contains the history of ancient American peoples who were visited by Jesus Christ after his resurrection.

4. Eternal Families: Mormons believe in the importance of families and that marriages performed in Mormon temples can be "sealed" for eternity. They believe that families can be together in the afterlife and that the love and relationships they develop in this life can continue after death.

5. Plan of Salvation: Mormons believe in a plan of salvation that outlines the purpose of life, the role of Jesus Christ, and the steps required for salvation. They believe that the purpose of life is to gain experience, knowledge, and develop Christlike attributes. They also believe that through Jesus Christ's atonement, people can repent and be forgiven of their sins and that obedience to God's commandments is necessary to return to live with God after death.

Mormons argue that their faith is unique and the correct religion because it provides a restoration of the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, contains modern revelation, and teaches the importance of families and the plan of salvation. They believe that these teachings provide a path to personal happiness and a closer relationship with God.

So, since Christianity doesn't include these things, Mormons consider it to not be the true, correct religion that honors God. Christians take the specific points that they've decided are important and criticize other religions for not having those things.

Similarly, while Christianity has the TS, other religions have their unique relics that Christians immediately dismiss as unimportant.

That's my point: Each religion takes their uniqueness to use as an example of what it's true, but to other religions is unimportant. (Another example, is that people claim "Christianity is unique because of "turn the other cheek", "love your enemy" - as if that makes it more true, when it's really just a difference of no real importance.)

[otseng]

If you have no evidence who the artist was, when or where he lived, or how he made the TS, then there's no justification for the assertion it was created by an artist.

But first, a minor detail. We do know when the artist lived - the 14th Century.

I've refuted the 1988 C-14 dating:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address these arguments instead of just restating the claim the C-14 dating is valid.

Absence of knowledge about WHERE the artist lived, or WHO the artist is, is neither relevant nor disqualifying.

If it's a work of art, we have the most enigmatic work of art in human history that precedes multiple technologies centuries ahead of its time. And he's also able to hide his identity and location. These by itself would be miraculous.

Is there any doubt these are works of art as opposed to photographs or other representations due to natural phenomena, not a sentient artist?

It's obvious the TS is not comparable to any other work of art in human history. All of these other artwork we know how they were done, yet with the TS we really have no idea how any of the features were formed.

As to how the image was painted, Luigi Garlaschelli has demonstrated one method.

I already addressed Garlaschelli's attempts at replication at:
viewtopic.php?p=1107921#p1107921

Please address these arguments instead of simply reiterating the claim its been replicated.

[otseng]

If you have no evidence who the artist was, when or where he lived, or how he made the TS, then there's no justification for the assertion it was created by an artist.

In the absence of any other confirmable explanation (or magic), proposing an artist's involvement is in line with what we know about how images come to be on a canvas / cloth.

As I've been extensively arguing, the TS is not how artists have been depicting things. In the medieval age, no artist depicts things as a photographic negative, or with 3-D encoded information, or with x-ray effects, or with hyperrealism, or with halftone effect, or with oxidation at the fiber level, or with real blood, etc.

Yes, there's no wrap around distortion. This is not evidence either way if the image is genuine or not. It is only a feature that describes the TS and a requirement that any explanation needs to fulfill.

If there's no distortion, this feller had him one awful skinny head.

I didn't say there's no distortion, I said there's no wrap around distortion.

Now wrap a cloth around the football, such that an imprint is made. Then unfold that cloth and notice the visual volume is increased in a rather predictable way.

Yes, this would be wrap around distortion. We don't see this type of distortion on the TS. If the entire football was wrapped, there would be no gap between the "front" and "back" of the image. It would be a single continuous image. However, we see a gap at the top of the head.

With this image we're seeing a forward view of a face on a cloth that doesn't have the tell tale marks of having been wrapped around the head, or body.

Exactly.

If we wish to propose that somehow the cloth was hovered over the body, we're left only with magic to explain how that image came to be (given the technology of the day).

When people say magic, I'm assuming that means a non-natural explanation. As I've extensively argued, this is already done in cosmology and physics.

What we're witnessing with your line of reasoning is the common fill in the gaps sort of religious explanation. "Beats me how it got there, so it must have been God's doing".

What it means is there is no naturalistic explanation, despite numerous attempts to find one. We see this pattern many times in this thread. And the most parsimonious answer is what the Bible has been claiming all along.

Unless God doesn't understand the very three dimensional space he's purported to've created, the most parsimonious explanation is that a human's hand worked on this image.

Actually, the theory that I'll be proposing I believe does a pretty good job at explaining the 3-D projection effect onto the cloth.

[otseng]

Scriptural references to the linen burial cloth:

Mat 27:59
And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Mar 15:46
And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

Luk 23:53
And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the word for linen cloth is sindon.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
- linen cloth, esp. that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped
- thing made of fine cloth

Jhn 19:40
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Jhn 20:5
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Jhn 20:7
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

In John, the word used for linen clothes is othonion.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... /mgnt/0-1/
- a piece of linen, small linen cloth
- strips of linen cloth for swathing the dead

[JoeyKnothead]

In the absence of any other confirmable explanation (or magic), proposing an artist's involvement is in line with what we know about how images come to be on a canvas / cloth.

As I've been extensively arguing, the TS is not how artists have been depicting things. In the medieval age, no artist depicts things as a photographic negative, or with 3-D encoded information, or with x-ray effects, or with hyperrealism, or with halftone effect, or with oxidation at the fiber level, or with real blood, etc.

My point still stands. Until this image can be shown to come from non-human processes, the answer with the least problems is human involvement.

If one wishes to propose natural, non-human processes, they've got a footing in rational thought. This image is certainly not a case of pereiodolia, so we all agree it ain't that.

If one wishes to propose supernatural involvement, then all bets are off. Is it Satan sent to trick us? Who could confirm a god's involvement? Who could make such an argument more rational and logical than it being human involvement?

Yes, there's no wrap around distortion.
... ... ...

I don't observe any distortion beyond the artistic talents of the era in which this cloth was found. I see a face forward, flat, artistically two dimensional image.

...
Yes, this would be wrap around distortion. We don't see this type of distortion on the TS. If the entire football was wrapped, there would be no gap between the "front" and "back" of the image. It would be a single continuous image. However, we see a gap at the top of the head.

I'll ride that no wrap around train only as far as we're still looking at a two dimensional object.

The gap at the top of the head, at best, indicates the cloth wasn't touching, but that doesn't change the two dimensional aspect.

...

When people say magic, I'm assuming that means a non-natural explanation. As I've extensively argued, this is already done in cosmology and physics.

Then we fuss at the cosmologists and the physicists. We don't just say since they've got goofy ideas then anybody's goofy idea must be accurate.

What it means is there is no naturalistic explanation, despite numerous attempts to find one.

When I look at the Mona Lisa, ugly as it is, I can't prove that image got there by natural means. I look at it, and I consider what I know about the world, a world which is of the natural, and I reasonably and logically conclude there was some human, somewhere, telling her to hold still, he'll be done painting in a minute.

The TS displays all the visual cues of human involvement. Its technical skill is about right in line with the time of its 'finding'.

We see this pattern many times in this thread. And the most parsimonious answer is what the Bible has been claiming all along.

Only - only - if one accepts the Bible as a reliable text. None of the core claims of the Bible have been shown to be true and factual, but let's count how to get to this image...

1. God exists
2. God creates the universe
3. In among 2 above, he creates Earth
4. There's some weird god as a human or a human as a god baby thing produced by a married virgin
5. It gets killed and put in this cloth
6. An image is produced
6. This image is produced as a product of supernatural, extra natural, or some genie blinking her eyes phenomenon heretofore undocumented in the entire history of human records

That ain't even counting the many other biblical claims that puts that entire document to question.

Actually, the theory that I'll be proposing I believe does a pretty good job at explaining the 3-D projection effect onto the cloth.

I've invested heavily in popcorn futures for that occasion.

[TRANSPONDER]

Though I'm Out and staying out, I have always regarded the shroud as one of the most interesting arguments for Jesus. Even after the medieval dating,it raises alot ofquestion.

However,the questions about the date, and the claims about the substances or whether there should be any substances on a non -painted image,requires further checking. And discussion until that is done is futile.

That said I remain convinced that this cannot be any kind of intended permanent shroud - at most it can only show that Jesus' entombment was temporary. At least, or worst it is not a real shroud.In addition the Gospel text casts doubt on the spear thrust so I am sure that the wound in the side is not really what happened to Jesus. So dickering about who faked what for me is like arguing about Lucy's baboon bone when the evidence for hominid evolution carries the day, anyway.

P.s I did see some vid trailer showing the wounds were in the wrong place, and the thorn wounds look painted on, frankly. I already posted about the distortions and don't propose to revisit.But for me,the dickering and arguments are otiose even if the shroud is really what Jesus came into contact with, so let the believers convince themselves, there is too much to say on the other side.

[Diogenes]

I've refuted the 1988 C-14 dating:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address these arguments instead of just restating the claim the C-14 dating is valid.

I'll alert the media about your miraculous claim that YOU have refuted the C-14 dating of 1988. You should write up "your refutation" as a Wikipedia entry.

In the meantime, I believe the scientists rather than your 'God of the Gaps' theories:

In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e. that radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. The official and complete report on the experiment was published in Nature.[1] The uncalibrated dates from the individual laboratories, with 1-sigma errors (68% confidence), were as follows:

Tucson: 646 ± 31 years;
Oxford: 750 ± 30 years;
Zürich: 676 ± 24 years old;
the unweighted mean was "691 ±31 years", which corresponds to calibrated ages of "1273–1288 AD" with 68% confidence, and "1262–1312, 1353–1384 AD cal" with 95% confidence.

As reported in Nature, Anthos Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin

I'm well aware there have been many desperate theories offered as to why we shouldn't trust those dates. They are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. We have gone round and round about this. STURP and the Vatican chose the sampling areas and now they try to discredit their own sampling techniques and choices. The original protocol, as you know, was for seven (7) labs to do the testing, but the Vatican intervened and cut that number to 3 labs. Their official reason was because they did not want to destroy more of the 'shroud' material. This is interesting because the Vatican does not call the cloth a genuine relic, but an icon worthy of inspiration.

The 'Shroud' is hardly the only artifact that has had (or has) a mystery surrounding its creation.

My AI friend suggests, "There are a few other examples of art with mysterious origins. One is the Nazca Lines, which are a series of giant geoglyphs in Peru. No one knows for sure who created them or why. Another example is the Cretan hieroglyphs, which are a script that was used in Crete during the Bronze Age. It has never been deciphered, and no one knows what language it represents.
....
The cave paintings at Lascaux are a good example. When they were first discovered, people thought they must have been created by some sort of supernatural being, because they were so beautiful and detailed. But we now know that they were made by humans, and that the images depict things like animals and plants that were important to the people who made them. It's amazing to think that humans were able to create such beautiful art without any modern tools or technology. But we now know that they were made by humans, and that the images depict things like animals and plants that were important to the people who made them. It's amazing to think that humans were able to create such beautiful art without any modern tools or technology."

There are many other examples. I've mentioned Erich von Däniken's many examples of mysterious gods or aliens and their "creations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%C3%A4niken

To the list I'd add Egyptian hieroglyphics and the Rosetta Stone. Both were mysteries for centuries until Champollion solved the riddle and cracked the code.

This whole "the artists then could not have known..." argument reminds me of my college Biblical Literature professor, Talmage Wilson. He had a favorite phrase he aimed at modern scholars for their assumption that people from the past had "Strong backs, but weak minds." Of course, they were every bit as smart as we are, thus it should be no surprise they were capable of works we cannot always understand.

In all these speculations about stuff we do not fully understand, the last resort should be "Aliens or God did it."

BTW, unless I've missed it, you have never answered the glaring issue re: the inhuman anatomy of the image, particularly the eyes that are set in the top third of the face instead of the middle. This is consistent with Gothic painting, but inconsistent with human anatomy. To the common man, the image just "looks like a painting," and not like a human or demigod.

I had not seen this before, but in 2004 there was a report about finding a Second image, on the back of the cloth, that matches the one on top. Somehow the Shroud lovers think this makes it less likely to be a forgery. I think the opposite. Like the one on the back was a first draft. In any event the second image as highlighted makes the anti-anatomy of the face even more obvious.



https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4750663

Another article from 2004 presents both arguments about the 2d image:

The discovery of the second face may seem to strengthen claims that the shroud is in fact a fake: any paint or liquid used by forgers to make a print on the cloth would have soaked through. But Professor Fanti noted that on both sides the facial image is "superficial", involving only the outermost linen fibres.

"When a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle. It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."

He says this "double superficiality" could answer how the image got on to the cloth. In the paper, he mentions a corona discharge, which can occur if the corpse is in an electric field and the atmosphere is ionised. That could happen for a body stored in a cave with quartz rocks prone to earthquakes, because that could release the radioactive gas radon.

In 1988, the Vatican approved carbon-dating tests. Three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona, concluded that the Shroud was made between 1260 to 1390.

Ray Rogers, one of the scientists, has said: "The characteristics of the image can be explained by reference to highly probable, well-known chemical reactions. No miracles are necessary to explain the image."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 54962.html

In accord:
Unusual sightings in the shroud are common and are often proved false, said Luigi Garlaschelli, a professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia. He recently led a team of experts that reproduced the shroud using materials and methods available in the 14th century - proof, they said, that it could have been made by a human hand in the Middle Ages.
https://phys.org/news/2009-11-faint-shroud-turin.html

In this last article one of the Shroud supporters claims to have found the words "Jesus Nazarene. Found (guilty of inciting the people to revolt). Put to death in the year 16 of Tiberius. Taken down at the ninth hour."
I am not making this up. It shows one can find whatever one wants in the 'Shroud.'

[Diogenes]

I've refuted the 1988 C-14 dating:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address these arguments instead of just restating the claim the C-14 dating is valid.

[emphasis applied]

This deserves a separate response.
Is your case SO weak you have to tell others what they can and cannot argue? You certainly have NOT refuted the valid C-14 dating of the Cloth of Turin. You've just repeated the 'special pleading' arguments of the highly biased committee after the tests were carried out EXACTLY THE WAY THE WAY STURP AND THE VATICAN WANTED, including reducing the labs and samples from 7 to 3.

What you have done is insist there be no more tests. This is really choice. You don't like the C-14 results so you claim... whatever... and then insist there should be no more testing. If you had "refuted" the testing I would expect to see a peer reviewed article under your name and in a prestigious scientific journal.