“A careful assessment of the evidence, especially concerning the tests recently concluded by a team of forty American scientists, however, render the forgery hypothesis [for the Shroud of Turin] extremely unlikely. …Hence, there is just no known mechanism by which a medieval forger could have produced this image. …If the Shroud is not a fake, then the next question is naturally: is the man on the Shroud Jesus? There seems to be little reason to doubt that it is.”
William Lane Craig, “The Son Rises”, (Copyright 1981), pp. 64, 66
From National Geographic:
“In 1988, the Vatican authorized carbon-14 dating of the shroud. Small samples from a corner of its fabric were sent to labs at the University of Oxford’s Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (RAU), the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. All three found that the shroud material dated to the years between 1260 and 1390, more than a millennium after the life and death of the historical Jesus.”
Gary: Those damned scientists! Spoiling the orthodox/conservative Christian story line once again!
Update from reader “Liam”, November 16, 2017:
So here is a more recent comment from William Lane Craig, that a simple google search unearthed:
“The Church hasn’t agreed to letting it be done again, but until those carbon dating tests are reversed, I think one can’t say that the shroud is authentic. You would need to have those tests somehow shown to be erroneous.”
Just search “shroud” and you’ll find the conversation pertaining to the shroud, duh.
Gary this is a dishonest post since you haven’t corrected it. Taking potshots at an article almost 4 decades out of date is intellectually dishonest at worst, extremely lazy at best.
WLC is open to new evidence and has changed his stance accordingly. You haven’t changed the name of the blog post article, or even admitted your error.
But you have that axe to grind don’t you?