Forget the improved translation. Rely on the KJV.
How many mistakes can they make in two paragraphs, this magazine called Truth Magazine, published by the Guardian of Truth Foundation, which touts itself for its accurate conservative Christian Bible study material? (One wouldn’t want to accuse their writers of liberal biblical interpretation in the second paragraph. Right!)
. . . The Turin shroud, which first appeared in 1356 A.D., is but another in the long line of Catholic relics (like the cup used in the last supper, the bones of Peter, the hairs of Jesus, the robe at the cross, etc.) which is being promoted for publicity and profit by the Catholic church – often in spite of the evidence, and not because of it. The fact the shroud was exposed and renounced by the Catholic Church at the time it was originally revealed as a fraud is quietly buried in the past. The fact that Popular Photography showed how similar shrouds could be made using materials available even in the 14th century is ignored (Nov. 1979). The fact the Catholic Church will not even allow a Carbon 14 test (using a piece of material no larger than a postage stamp) to establish a valid date is also brushed aside. The fact there is even a difference of 2-3 inches in height between the image front and back view is quietly brushed aside as well. And the fact the feet are clearly visible (ever try making a clear footprint lying on your back with both legs straight out?) on the cloth is also ignored. Instead one hears, “But it has been proven now conclusively to be the burial cloth of Jesus.” Hardly! “Is it the shroud of Christ Himself? That, say both scientists and theologians, will remain forever outside the bound of proof” (National Geographic, July 1980).
Actually that one would even seriously consider it to be such is a bit amazing, especially in view of John 20:5-7 . John here makes it abundantly clear that the body of Jesus was not wrapped in a shroud (or sheet), but rather was wrapped in small strips around the body. While it is true Mark 15:46 uses the term “sheet” in the NASB, it is not in the original or in the KJV! John again made it clear that the facial cloth was also separate from the other wrappings. Lenski, in commenting on Luke 23:53 , says, “Like Matthew and Mark, Luke says only that the body was wrapped in sindown, cloth of fine linen which was torn into long strips for the purpose of wrapping it around the limbs and1the body. John speaks of these othonia or bands, between which the aromatic spices were sprinkled as they were being wrapped. Only the head was left free to be covered with a special cloth after the body had been deposited in the tomb” (Commentary on Luke, p. 1162). Thus the Shroud of Turin can not be the burial cloth of Christ! The language of the Bible does not support the Shroud!
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
And as Archbishop James Ussher of Armagh calculated in the 1650s, creation occurred on the evening of October 22, 4004 BC; And the creationists have it that men walked with dinosaurs! You can calculate it all using just the Bible – scriptura sola! Who needs rationality and science, when you can have revelation, for free? Fanatacism knows no bounds and quite rightly(?) has no respect for merely human knowledge! If the Bible says Black is White, then Black is White. Mind you, St Paul says there are no longer Jews or Greeks! None so blind, as those who will not see!
Some truth. I think they need better biblical exegesis. Let’s ignore the fact they are completely ignorant of any Shroud studies that have been done starting with Pia’s discovery.
Agreed, daveb.
Obviously the publication does not know enough about the Shroud.
As for the (KJV) Bible, I will quote the world-renowned biblical scholar Father Joseph A. Fitzmyer by saying ” it was not dropped from heaven in King James English.” He translated biblical texts in Aramaic, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin.
The publication also does not of course mention the Jerusalem Bible, originally produced by heavyweight scholars such as Father Roland de Vaux and his team at Jerusalem’s École Bíblique, the city´s oldest archaeological institution. These scholars were experts in semitic languages, which can also be said about those there today, particularly Father Émile Puech. The latest Jerusalem Bible has Dom Henry Wansbrough (UK) as editor.
But, whatever the version, it is clear that no fundamentalist interpretation is possible today. Any learned Christian knows that Jesus did not interpret the OT like a fundamentalist…in those days.
Who said, “If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, It’s good enough for me?”
I don’t know, in fact I didn’t even know Jesus had read the KJV.