2024-08-21 16:54:05
The Turin Shroud is the subject of much debate. However, scientific study points to the shroud image having been painted, and carbon dating puts its age well beyond the time of Jesus at around 1260-1390. [Link][Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(70-4-89) Author
2024-08-21 16:58:59
NNN. Nothing about the post is misleading but yet OP was asking an open ended question with additional context added. Nothing about note proposes addresses anything new. Thanks NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(52-1-19) Author
2024-08-21 17:30:24
While the Shroud of Turin was indeed carbon dated to the 13-14th century, this result is disputed since it was in a fire which affects the accuracy of carbon dating. Other evidence points to it being much older. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(29-4-39) Author
2024-08-21 19:17:49
The study only emits the hypothesis of this date due to the supposed conditions of preservation of the should¹. Carbon 14 dating and historical documents estimates the shoud to be around 1300². Moreover, the Shroud can be made with medieval painting techniques. ¹ [Link] ² [Link] ² [Link] ³ [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(69-5-67) Author
2024-08-21 21:54:31
The study is not new, it is from 2022, in addition to the fact that the study presents serious limitations and speculations, such as speculations on average temperature in 13 centuries and environment, in addition to the sample size being very small (0.5 mm x 1 mm). [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(35-2-33) Author
2024-08-22 00:52:21
The Shroud of Turin has been extensively studied and the consensus remains that this is not Jesus of Nazareth. The “new” study is from 2022 and only addresses technical aspects of the carbon dating of the linen material. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(53-2-35) Author
2024-08-22 02:22:34
NNN. If you disagree, argue it in the comments not CN. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(9-1-9) Author
2024-08-22 02:31:58
The abstract of the paper in other CNs does make the specific claim that the shroud could be 2000 years old. Citing the limitations gives a biased sense that the study was taken out of context by OP. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(3-1-9) Author
2024-08-22 06:22:45
The ‘new research’ referenced in this thread is “Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud” by Carlino et al. published in 2017, which was then retracted by the PLOS One in journal 2018 for lack of evidence and faulty methods. RETRACTION: [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(112-0-30) Author
2024-08-22 08:46:58
NNN The retraction was not on the basis of date, but on the basis of claims of trauma, which was not the claim in the original post. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(7-0-4) Author
2024-08-22 09:33:13
PLEASE READ "new" study (2022): X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample [Link] Structural degradations were inspected by means of WAXS To make these results compatible with RC test, TS should have been conserved at a temperature close to the maximum values registered on the 🌍 NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(2-0-7) Author
2024-08-22 11:33:37
The shroud is subject to much open debate without CNs. The 2022 study should be allowed to be openly debated because it is still an open question. The study dating the shroud to the middle ages has been noted to have been a test on an edge sample with a different stitch style. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(4-1-4) Author