To understand the term "ab" in Hebrew, consider the following points:

• "Ab" () means "father" in Hebrew.
• It is used in various contexts, including familial and spiritual references.
• The term appears frequently in the Hebrew Bible, symbolizing authority and leadership.
• In Jewish tradition, "Ab" is often part of titles, such as "Abba," meaning "daddy" or "papa."
• The word can also be found in compound terms, like "Avraham" (Abraham), meaning "father of many."
• Understanding "ab" enriches the study of Hebrew language and culture.

Aggrad08 said:

---

The next credible argument against the radiometric dating will be the first.

I already posted a paper debunking the repair theory. So what else you got?

And not one believer in the shroud has even attempted to address this historical record which just by super coincidence exactly matches the carbon dating.

---

How about:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7597180/

It states that FTIR shows the dated sample is atypical and not representative of the rest of the shroud.

It's funny how these studies are always printed by the same people and in predatory journals that charge a fee to publish. The sample was selected by the Church. I'm sure researchers would be happy to repeat the experiment on another part of the Shroud. Still, the original sample was well analyzed and was not a repair, nor any more damaged than other parts of the Shroud.

Your summary seems to imply something beyond what the study actually says.

Quote:

---

According to [23], the FTIR data for the radiocarbon sample shows physical characteristics of both the water stain and scorch regions of the cloth. As a consequence, FTIR spectra show the area selected for the radiocarbon sampling is atypical and is not representative of the rest of the Shroud.

---

They weren't saying there's any reason to think that the sample was from a repaired section or not a part of the original fabric. The point of the paper isn't really that the original dating was done improperly, just that it doesn't meet current standards and there now exist better, more reliable testing methods. The standard would be to test more material from a wider variety of spots on the shroud, but that's a difficult thing to get because it would require cutting out and destroying sections of it.

I expect eventually more radiocarbon testing will be approved. Until then the prior tests are all we have to go on.

Carbon dating requires the sample to be burned, so no they don't want to do it again. Also, perhaps the Church just believes faith is enough.

It's funny how you guys keep saying we haven't shown proof but when we post a scientific paper discussing a scientific analysis that shows the carbon dated sample was not representative, you just say it's BS

It matters not that the paper doesn't say it was a repair. The sample was not representative meaning the carbon dating was not representative. It was different under FTIR than the rest of the shroud. It was different.

I'm asking you to read the entire study and not just the handful of sentences you think proves your point. The article pretty explicitly does not say that the dating given in the original study was wrong, just that they think there is enough reason to doubt the accuracy to support further testing.

Further point, just because a fabric has been exposed to water or fire doesn't make accurate carbon dating impossible. You're trying to argue the "atypical" label means any dating using that section is invalid, but again that's not what the study is saying. It's only atypical in the sense that other sections of the shroud were exposed to different levels of water and heat in the past.

So yes, I support further testing. I think we can absolutely narrow down the time window in which it was produced. But there's very little reason to think that the original study was off by 1300 years.

My goodness..what about "not representative of the rest of the shroud" do you not understand?

I read the entire thing and just because it doesn't say "the carbon dating was compromised" doesn't mean that the piece that was carbon dated can't be questioned because it "IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE"

Ok, since you read it, in what specific way do they suggest that the tested portion was not representative of the rest of the shroud?

The FTIR spectrum from the carbon dated sample is different from threads taken from the bulk of the shroud. That's not even considering the further discussion on contamination.

I'm not convinced you even know what that means. It does not mean that the tested portion was not a part of the original shroud or that we should expect the actual ages to be different. It does not mean that it can't be accurately dated either. The point of this part of the study is that the portion of the shroud tested has water damage and fire exposure. That's how it is atypical or not representative. Neither of which makes accurate testing impossible.

But by all means, test more areas so we can confirm. I'm all for it.

Maybe do just a tiny bit of research and I think you will find that both water (by introducing foreign more modern carbon particles), fire damage, and unknown handling/storage provenenace can significantly affect carbon dating. I do know what this means. It means the previous radiocarbon dating is in fact questionable at best, in both the sample protocol and the sample itself.

Enviroag02 said:

---

Maybe do just a tiny bit of research and I think you will find that both water (by introducing foreign more modern carbon particles) and fire damage can significantly affect carbon dating. I do know what this means. It means the previous radiocarbon dating is in fact questionable at best, in both the sample protocol and the sample itself.

---

But it can't affect these unproven dating techniques used by the same group of researchers who happen to believe the Shroud is real and only publish in predatory journals, right?

This FTIR tech is only showing the carbon dated sample isn't representative. It's not presuming to show an age. This paper is only laying the foundation for why the shroud should be carbon dated again. Logically, though if one believes the carbon dating was questionable, as this paper shows, then all the other context clues hold more weight than they previous did when the carbon dating was the trump card. If it no longer is the trump card, then the extremely surficial state of the image with no wicking, which could not have been done in the medieval period holds more weight..The pollen analysis then holds more weight. The fact that the image can't be recreated even today holds more weight.

Enviroag02 said:

---

My goodness..what about "not representative of the rest of the shroud" do you not understand?

I read the entire thing and just because it doesn't say "the carbon dating was compromised" doesn't mean that the piece that was carbon dated can't be questioned because it "IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE"

---

Yeah that's a very big stretch from what the homogeneous argument actually buys you:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19301865?via%3Dihub

Here is the gist:

"If the Zurich and Tucson data were displaced upward by 88 RCY as shown in the figure all of the results would agree within the uncertainty observed. Indeed, if the magnitude of the "adjustment" were as small as ~10 RCY, the 2 analysis would confirm a statistical homogeneity assuming the uncertainties in the data did not change."

By all means, get the Catholic Church to test again. But I don't think they truly believe the data is wrong and they have had a very long time to do further testing if they thought it was.

Water damaged fabric can be accurately carbon dated. Scorched fabric can be accurately carbon dated. Funny enough, water damage is more likely to shift the apparent age of the item further back in time so the shroud might be even younger than the tests suggests. There's a pretty bad paper out there were someone tries to show the chemical process of how the fire/smoke damage might have made the age of the shroud appear younger than it is in which they severely underplay the fact that attempts to experimentally recreate this effect have failed. Also, as the paper itself mentions, scorched material is less likely to be contaminated by other sources.

Neither you nor the paper you posted are saying anything that wasn't already known by everybody even when the shroud was being originally tested. If you want the best results you test more material from a wider variety of locations on the object. That's the standard of accuracy they refer to. No one disagrees with that. The limitation is solely on what pieces of the shroud its caretakers are willing to sacrifice for this testing.

Right, no one is arguing that further carbon dating shouldn't be done, because of all the issues related to the original sampling and testing. So why do you guys consider the existing carbon dating to be the irrefutable proof of its medieval origin? It's almost like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I don't think anyone is saying "irrefutable". Just that even with all of the possible issues and uncertainties that exist the carbon dating of the shroud is still the single best, most reliable piece of evidence we have. Based on the known contaminates and history of the shroud, the uncertainty over the results of the testing is more likely to be measured in decades up to a few centuries rather than several centuries up to over a millennia.

The smoke and water damage you point out is actually good evidence that the tested portions were indeed a part of the original shroud and not a repaired section.

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's funny how these studies are always printed by the same people and in predatory journals that charge a fee to publish. The sample was selected by the Church. I'm sure researchers would be happy to repeat the experiment on another part of the Shroud. Still, the original sample was well analyzed and was not a repair, nor any more damaged than other parts of the Shroud.

---

Since when is Entropy considered a "predatory journal"?

To piggyback off of this, if there was a clear historical record of this Shroud being venerated in the 3rd century, for example, it would much harder to explain the carbon dating. But we don't have that. We have a huge blank and then it appears in the record in the 14th century which just so happens to match with the carbon dating and other circumstantial evidence.

KingofHazor said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's funny how these studies are always printed by the same people and in predatory journals that charge a fee to publish. The sample was selected by the Church. I'm sure researchers would be happy to repeat the experiment on another part of the Shroud. Still, the original sample was well analyzed and was not a repair, nor any more damaged than other parts of the Shroud.

---

Since when is Entropy considered a "predatory journal"?

---

It's an open access journal where all fees are paid by the authors and it speed-runs peer review. The publisher is a well-known purveyor of this kind of predatory academic publishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

Quote:

---

Water damaged fabric can be accurately carbon dated. Scorched fabric can be accurately carbon dated. Funny enough, water damage is more likely to shift the apparent age of the item further back in time so the shroud might be even younger than the tests suggests.

---

That's not necessarily correct. Water and smoke damage can change the C14 date of the specimen being dated. Whether the water and smoke increase or decrease the C14 date depends on the C14 percentage of the water and of the wood that was burned. They frequently do make the items seem older if they are "old water" or "old wood" but could have the opposite effect if they contained a higher percentage of C14 than the sample being tested.

Sapper Redux said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's funny how these studies are always printed by the same people and in predatory journals that charge a fee to publish. The sample was selected by the Church. I'm sure researchers would be happy to repeat the experiment on another part of the Shroud. Still, the original sample was well analyzed and was not a repair, nor any more damaged than other parts of the Shroud.

---

Since when is Entropy considered a "predatory journal"?

---

It's an open access journal where all fees are paid by the authors and it speed-runs peer review. The publisher is a well-known purveyor of this kind of predatory academic publishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

---

Google AI disagrees with you:

Quote:

---

Entropy is generally considered a legitimate, albeit polarizing, peer-reviewed journal published by MDPI, not a typical "predatory" journal. It is indexed in major databases like Scopus and Web of Science (SCIE) and has a reasonable impact factor. However, it is often criticized for fast publication times and high volumes of special issues, leading to debates regarding its peer-review quality.

---

It is also valid enough to be republished by PubMed which means that it was extensively peer reviewed. So your attempts make ad hominem attacks on the journal seem ill-founded.

I've yet to see any good reason to think that the water damage would significantly change the observed age either way. The water damage comes from when it was drenched to put out the flames, but from what I've read any process that would actually change the observed age would require it to be soaked for a much longer period of time. Brief exposure might introduce some surface contaminates but wouldn't do much else beyond that.

The fact we are even discussing these nuances shows that the carbon dating isn't the irrefutable proof it's been made out to be.

We can discuss the nuances of whatever point you want to bring up in favor of the shroud's authenticity, would that invalidate them as well?

Rocag said:

---

I've yet to see any good reason to think that the water damage would significantly change the observed age either way. The water damage comes from when it was drenched to put out the flames, but from what I've read any process that would actually change the observed age would require it to be soaked for a much longer period of time. Brief exposure might introduce some surface contaminates but wouldn't do much else beyond that.

---

How long was it soaked? I didn't know that that data was available. Do you know, or are you assuming that it was brief? Over its supposedly 2000-year history, was it ever soaked in addition to when it was soaked putting out the fire?

And I think your underlying premise, that a short soak can't affect the C14 date, is wrong, at least stated as baldly as that. A lot depends on the porosity of the fibers and the concentration of C14 in the water as well as other factors.

I asked those questions to point out the ambiguities inherent in C14 dating. The single biggest issue in reliable C14 dating, mentioned over and over again by both archaeologists and C14 specialists, is sample selection. Sample selection means not only choosing the best samples but also understanding what extrinsic factors might have impacted the sample.

And apparently there are other theories, besides the grafted repair, as to why the C14 dates may be wrong. Those theories are "carbon exchange" from the 1533 fire that would have resisted pretreatments, and a theory that bacteria and fungi had grown on the Shroud, also resistant to pretreatments. If either theory has any validity, they would have resulted in a considerably younger date than the actual date of the linen in the Shroud.

Rocag said:

---

We can discuss the nuances of whatever point you want to bring up in favor of the shroud's authenticity, would that invalidate them as well?

---

Of course not, but I'm not portraying my arguments as irrefutable.

In the end I think you have to let the physical condition of the shroud speak for itself. We don't and can't know every little thing that might have happened to it since it was created. But I also think it's wrong to say that accurate carbon dating requires us to first know everything about the history of the item being tested. That kind of information is almost never known and even so carbon dating of ancient artifacts has consistently been able to provide accurate dating when checked against artifacts with known and verified ages. Major events that can alter the tested age leave other evidence behind that is observable. And if it is known it can be compensated for.

But yeah, if you approach the subject with the assumption that the shroud is genuine then there is no test or study which will be accepted as proof otherwise. You will always find a way to doubt the results, no matter what.

The official result of the testing was that the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. It's odd you look at something with a given confidence interval and say it is claiming to be irrefutable.

I didn't say it's claiming to be irrefutable. The skeptics on this thread have.

Quote:

---

That kind of information is almost never known and even so carbon dating of ancient artifacts has consistently been able to provide accurate dating when checked against artifacts with known and verified ages.

---

That's actually not true. C14 dating was known to be off, far off, so scientists developed dendrochronology to "calibrate it". Now, the radiocarbon guys claim that calibrated C14 dating is accurate and reliable, but that's still not true. Many, many archaeologists, particularly in the eastern Mediterranean where ancient dates can be known with certainty, refuse to accept C14 dates because they can prove that they were wrong. Manfred Bietak, how is perhaps the greatest living archaeologist and who excavated Avaris, refuses to accept C14 dates.

The "smoking gun", if you will, is the destruction of Ninevah. Everyone, and I mean everyone, agrees that it was destroyed in 612 BC, but the C14 dating of human remains from that destruction date 200 years too early.

Even while the C14 guys are claiming accuracy, they are also publishing papers trying to figure out why it's not. They also try Bayesian statistical methods to close the gap, but their use of priors in that effort is eyerolling. It's garbage in, garbage out. Their use of Bayesian methodology has been said to produce "more precise but less accurate" results.

Just read articles about dating of ancient items and the disputes over dates. Much of the focus is on the conditions of the artifacts and the conditions that they endured.

KingofHazor said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

It's funny how these studies are always printed by the same people and in predatory journals that charge a fee to publish. The sample was selected by the Church. I'm sure researchers would be happy to repeat the experiment on another part of the Shroud. Still, the original sample was well analyzed and was not a repair, nor any more damaged than other parts of the Shroud.

---

Since when is Entropy considered a "predatory journal"?

---

It's an open access journal where all fees are paid by the authors and it speed-runs peer review. The publisher is a well-known purveyor of this kind of predatory academic publishing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI

---

Google AI disagrees with you:

Quote:

---

Entropy is generally considered a legitimate, albeit polarizing, peer-reviewed journal published by MDPI, not a typical "predatory" journal. It is indexed in major databases like Scopus and Web of Science (SCIE) and has a reasonable impact factor. However, it is often criticized for fast publication times and high volumes of special issues, leading to debates regarding its peer-review quality.

---

It is also valid enough to be republished by PubMed which means that it was extensively peer reviewed. So your attempts make ad hominem attacks on the journal seem ill-founded.

---

I love how your quote acknowledges the evidence supporting my position and admits its validity as a concern and you turn around and say, "See! It's a baseless ad hominem attack!"

Your "smoking gun" is actually a great example of the scale of the issue we're talking about when we discuss how accurate carbon dating is. For an event that took place over 2600 years ago a carbon dating test was about 200 years off and that is one of the best examples you can present to show that the testing method is inaccurate. Think of that again. A difference of 200 years is considered a major error. And I think the example of Nineveh is absolutely an interesting one and a great example of the work still to be done as testing methods are improved.

Now compare that to the shroud where the age difference would be 1300 years. That's an order of magnitude larger than your "smoking gun" example of the possible errors in the results of carbon dating. So even if I accept something in that range of accuracy for the shroud we're still left with an age range of something like 700 years old plus or minus a few centuries. OK. I'm fine with that degree of uncertainty.

Not apples to apples..the shroud has been contaminated in more modern times and handled who knows how many times not unburied and tested immediately after.