A Prophet, Forty Two Children, And Two Bears

One of the passages of scripture that I often see skeptics cite -in order to bring charge against the Bible- is the story of Elisha and the forty two children being mauled by two she bears. I do understand that any explanation of this account will not be suffice for some, and for others (who wish to remain skeptics) that see a credible answer, will likely just move on to other passages to keep the charges coming. We must keep in mind that a sound answer is not usually sought anyways, but the opposite. I’m speaking from experience here. Lets read the passage that’s in question.

2Ki 2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going
up by the way, there came forth little children (na‛ar) out of the city, and
mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald
head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name
of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare
forty and two children (yeled) of them.

There can be no doubt that this story ends in tragedy but what’s often overlooked is who/what the children were. At a quick reading of this scripture, it seems as if the prophet Elisha maliciously condemned little children (some have said under ten years of age) for simply making fun of him. The unfortunate translating of two Hebrew words into English, both rendered as “children”, don’t quite give us the full scope to their range of meaning. The word na‛ar has been applied to various individuals who were clearly not children at all. Isaac was called na‛ar when he was twenty eight years old. (1) Joseph was also called na‛ar when he was thirty nine. (2) There are other passages where this word applies to grown men. The word yeled has similar renderings, so there’s no need for us to continue further in this point.

Even if these were grown men, it still seems to be a harsh act for Elisha to curse them for making fun of him, right? Well, lets look at what was potentially going on here. We can’t truly know for sure since we weren’t there, but there are some clues to what was happening. It appears that these men were doing more than mocking him, but likely were threatening the prophet. By telling him to “go up”, that could be viewed as a threat to exit this world -like his mentor Elijah miraculously did- or they would see to it through another means. And with a forty two verses one scenario, they easy could have overcome him, barring a miracle, and that’s where the she bears come in to intervene. It’s also possible that he may not have been in danger at all, but was being mocked only. However, this is still a serious charge in the Old Testament before the new Covenant of Grace was initiated. God, for various reasons, placed his prophets under a serious oath (to keep purity and holiness at the forefront) and those that crossed them were not to be tolerated. (Another example of this would be where two hundred and fifty people tried to usurp the authority of Moses and Aaron. Those men didn’t fare too well 3) This was in order to keep the Jews from apostatizing like the pagan nations did; after all, they were the people to preserve God’s Word and ultimately produce the Messiah for all of mankind. If God were to allow a lax of law, the lukewarmness of the people would have ensued and this reality might never have materialized.

*Edit: Here’s a video that gives even more clarification than what I have written above. I highly recommend that you watch it. [VIDEO LINK]

***

References:

1. Genesis 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

2. Genesis 41:12 And there was there with us a young man, an Hebrew, servant to the captain of the guard; and we told him, and he interpreted to us our dreams; to each man according to his dream he did interpret.

3. Numbers 16:28-33 “Moses said, “By this you shall know that the LORD has sent me to do all these deeds; for this is not my doing. “If these men die the death of all men or if they suffer the fate of all men, then the LORD has not sent me. “But if the LORD brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into Sheol, then you will understand that these men have spurned the LORD.” As he finished speaking all these words, the ground that was under them split open; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah with their possessions. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to Sheol; and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.”

4. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed (Jesus, the messiah); it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Quotations

“And they (Adam and Eve), too, were destined to be overcome of evil: they were soon to experience the meaning of that awful word, death, which the lips of their Creator had uttered; to feel the terrors of His wrath, the desolation of ruin, the horrors of corruption. For the all-wise God well knew that great obstacle to perfection in the creature, and that, until it could be removed, He was unable to show forth his love and pour out His bounty to the full. He could not endow men with great power and wisdom; He could not make them excellent in majesty and glorious in might, swift as the winds or the lightening to do His will, until they had passed the danger of abusing His gifts, and so falling as the sinful angels had done before them” -1884 The Earth’s Earliest Ages

The Days Of Genesis One: Literal Or Metaphorical?

The interpretation of the days of Genesis One has for the past two thousand years been of much curiosity to Christians. Some have said it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think -let alone explain in words- what they mean. (1) It seems that the majority of Christians believe that the only way to look at the six days of creation, as literal twenty four hour days and nothing else. Unfortunately, this view has so permeated the culture that if you believe anything other than this interpretation, you are viewed as a liberal Christian who has not much regard for the Bible. Even worse, is the charge from some that you are not even a Christian at all if you do not take this view. Little do people realize, is that there are multiple views of what the days of Genesis One mean, and some of the points of these views have merit and credibility. The list below is a quick summary of four views of the creation days, including the most common “Calendar Day” view. (2)

1. Calender-day: creation days consist of six consecutive 24-hour periods that are historical and chronological.
2. Day-age: creation days are six consecutive long ages that are historical, sequential, and chronological.
3. Framework: the creation week is a metaphor to narrate God’s actions in creation with days to be understood as topical rather than sequential and the durations as unspecified.
4. Analogical-days: creation days are analogous to, but not necessarily identical to, human days, that is, broadly consecutive but of unspecified length.

We won’t go into the pros and cons for each in this article but if you’d like to do some research on these however, you can check out the Presbyterian Church In America’s website. (3) The Westminster Theological Seminary has a few things to say about these views as well. (4) I for many years was a subscriber to the “Calendar Day” view, but there were various irreconcilable facts (and false preconceived ideas on my part) within it, that I could no longer avoid. Even though I didn’t know where to go from there, I just knew that staying put and holding the fort, wasn’t an option. We’ll discuss this in a later article and analyze some of these various points and facts further, some that may even challenge your worldview.

 

***

References:

1. The City of God by Augustine

2. 2004 A Matter Of Days by Hugh Ross pg. 243-244

3. Report Of The Creation Study Committee
http://www.pcahistory.org/creation/report.html

4. Westminster Theological Seminary and the Days of Creation
http://www.wts.edu/about/beliefs/statements/creation.html

A Serpent But Not A Snake

Oftentimes, I hear mentioned that the serpent in Genesis 3 is merely a talking snake, that, somehow Lucifer spoke though (ventriloquism?), or it was actually him in the form of a slithery snake, something along these lines. After all, some Bible translations do in fact say snake and is mentioned as being more subtle or crafty than any beast of the field. The vernacular seemingly alludes to just another animal in the garden that’s just a little bit more clever than the others. Is this the case though?

Lets look at the Hebrew. To accurately determine what this snake was, it’s beneficial to cite the language that the Old Testament was mostly written in, Hebrew. I don’t speak, read, or write Hebrew, but I’ll introduce you to someone that does. His name is Dr. Michael Heiser. Dr. Heiser is a Ph. D. in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Languages and the Academic Editor of the Logos Bible Software. He says that the root of the nachash can be rendered three ways according to its use of noun, verb, and adjective. (1)

Noun: serpent
Verb: to deceive or to divine = practice of divination
Adjective: to shine, shining one

So, when we put this all together we have, a serpentine being, that shines, who is a deceiver. Does this describe a talking garden snake? I think not. A cross reference to this serpentine being that shines is in Isaiah 14:12 where there’s mention of Lucifer, meaning bright and morning star. In Numbers 21:8 God told Moses to make a “fiery serpent” (saraph) and in verse 9 it mentions him making a nachash of brass (2). The two words appear to be interchangeable, or at least in a similar class.

According to one of the Hebrew definitions, a saraph means fiery, as in poisonous coming from the root to burn or set on fire. It also says that a saraph, seraphim plural, are majestic beings with 6 wings, human hands or voices in attendance upon God. (3) Another concordance says that a saraph is a symbolical creature who’s burning (shining) is as the color copper. (4) In the ancient world there are numerous legends of people talking to serpentine beings that shine. Perhaps we’ll discuss this in a later article.

 

***
References:

1. Mike Heiser: Genesis 6 Hybrids, Sons of God, Nephilim (Ancient of Days Conference, date unknown)

2. Numbers 21:8-9 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent (śârâph), and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent (nâchâsh) of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of  brass, he lived.

3. Brown-Driver- Biggs’ Hebrew definitions (on eSword)

4. Strongs Concordance (on eSword)

Atheism Is Just Another Philosophy

In the endless debate between Christians and Atheists, there arises familiar arguments on both sides on why God exists or why he doesn’t, as well as how to approach life based on each worldview. On the Christian side, we accept that our system of beliefs are a faith but to the common Atheist, he/she rejects that theirs is a faith or system of any kind; just simply a negation or a lack of belief. Some will wager, that, a negative stance is a mere absence of belief, but is that absence of belief void of any belief against its opponent? No it is not. Consider the “Straight Edge” subculture which are opponents of the hedonistic adherents of punk rock. The Straight Edge lifestyle in general “is a philosophy of staying clean and sober: meaning refraining from using alcohol, tobacco, and any other recreational drugs.” (1) They believe that the hedonist Punk Rockers are wrong in what they do. They believe that not drinking at all makes for a better/healthier lifestyle etc. This philosophy can apply to many groups indeed -as it is not exclusive to one group- but the “Straight Edgers” are also a particular subculture aimed at another (like Atheism is to Deism/Theism). Their sole basis and founding is built off a negative to combat a positive affirmation of belief.

The same case can be made of Anarchists. They are a negatively rooted stance against a positive affirmation of belief. Not all Anarchists are in harmony of their disbelief (much like Atheism) and how/what they’re rebelling against of government and authority is not universal. Nevertheless, Anarchists share a certain family resemblance, (2) or shall we say, philosophy or system of beliefs.  Another simplistic way to look at a negative position opposing a positive, are people that:

• fight against fighting-equals fighting
• hate against haters-equals hating
• believe against believing-equals believing

I can see very clearly why Atheists would reject that Atheism is a philosophy or system of beliefs. As to affirm it is, would carry us closer to a faith of sorts dare we say *gulp* religion. As a friend of mine put it, “the religion of unbelief”. I’ll let you make the decision if you think it’s a religion or not. The question we must ask, what exactly is philosophy? In a varied list of answers, we see that it’s a “system of values by which one lives” (3) and a “set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity“. (4) As we read earlier, a system of beliefs from a negative stance, doesn’t have to be universal acceptance of the variables but yet can have a common bond of what they’re rejecting in general. The same principal applies to the positive side of affirming a general belief while differing on the methodology, “rules”, or belief to an affirmation. Can the case be made that Atheism has a system of beliefs, that, directly relate -as in the reason for a particular worldview- to a lack of belief/disbelief in a God? It is my position that it does. I think it’s safe to say that the majority of Atheists (if not all) are subscribers to Naturalism. And only with this worldview do they approach the world’s questions and problems. A few more examples of Atheistic beliefs (some universal) that spurn from rejecting God are:

• humans cease to exist after death, hence no afterlife
• the big bang happened without an outside source i. e. God (evidently, nothing created everything)
• humans are merely animals with an evolved conscience of reason
• Truth is relative to the individual rather than based on a supreme universal standard
• Seeing anything appearing “supernatural” i. e. apparitions, angels, demons, ghosts etc is either the result of unknown science or a delusion

What I find interesting about Atheism is this. For it being a “non belief system” you have certain views, dogmas, beliefs *ahem non beliefs* (Positive Atheism verses Negative Atheism; which Agnosticism can fall under as well) split under the general umbrella term of “Atheist”. Positive Atheism basically states in the definitive that there is no God while Negative Atheism says that perhaps there is, or “I don’t know” or knowing is unknowable. For one to be a Positive Atheist -saying for a fact there is no God, also called a Gnostic Atheist- there is certain criteria/belief one must believe in order to be one, if not, then its the other. I ask you, even if there is only one criteria to be considered either or, does that discredit either from being a belief system? No it does not. Only one central principle is needed. For example, the singular belief of a Pacifist is to avoid violence and ultimately war at all cost. In closing, even staunch atheist activists like Rob Sherman will try to argue that, Atheism is the philosophy that makes sense. (5)

 

* * *

References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_edge

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists

3. http://www.answers.com/topic/philosophy

4. Ibid

5. Atheism vs Christianity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5hOza8GTqk

Not All Analogies Are Created Equal

In one’s quest to try and explain the Trinity, the attempt is often followed by an analogy. Some may feel that none are suffice and will be happy to just say that it’s a mystery, that none can comprehend. Since the Trinity is unique in the universe (concerning one being in three persons) how could we make an accurate comparison anyways? Though I would agree that no one can fully understand God and his triunity of being, that doesn’t mean we can’t have any grasp of it at all. With prayer and study, I’m confident that God will give us the clarity we desire.

I have heard many of the various Trinity analogies out there and I’ll say that most are not accurately descriptive. In fact, some confuse people even more which is rather counterproductive. Many of us have heard the egg analogy where the shell, yoke, and white are all said to be God. The problem with this analogy is that they are compartmentalized and none of the three parts are the full essence or completeness of the egg. At best, this would be describing Tritheism. Another popular analogy is water, ice, and steam existing in different forms. Unless we are talking about the triple point of water, this analogy is describing Modalism.

There are many others out there that we could discuss, but I’d like to share my favorite one (which I feel is one of the best analogies) that I learned from a friend. Lets talk about the sun, ya that big bright object in the sky. The sun (God the Father) is the source of life. From it proceeds light photons/rays (God the Son) and from the rays proceeds the energy/heat (God the Holy Spirit). Now, the ray is not the sun itself but you can’t say it’s not the essence of the sun either, as it can’t be separated. The same can be said for the energy, it’s not the ray itself nor the sun, but it still is the same essence of both. So you have three parts of the one source which are distinct from each other but yet they are all one in essence.

Edit: The comments by Yeremyah brings up some valid points about the sun analogy and shows its weakness. Perhaps this analogy is not as strong as I previous thought. However, an analogy does not need to be an exact match to its comparison. (1) Gloria brought up a good one about space as well. If anyone else has any others that they would like to add to the list, feel free to put them in the comments section.

 

***

References:

1. 2000 A Rulebook For Arguments pg. 35

Logical Fallacies: A Failure In Logic

An important tool in apologetics is the study of logic and reason. Today we’ll be specifically talking about logical fallacies. We all have been guilty of using them but by knowing what they are, it will help us make our case for discussion -and defense- more concise and cogent. I have made a list below of the more popular ones that I have seen people use. There are many others but starting with these will get you going in the right direction and on your way.

• Red Herring - is the attempt by the speaker to distract attention away from the topic at hand by inserting another one that is unrelated. Example: If you are having a discussion/debate about how factual macro evolution is, and your subject out of the Blue starts ragging on the “mean and cruel God” of the Old Testament, that won’t help his/her case for evolution.

• Strawman - is simply the misrepresentation of one’s position and attacking that instead of the real position. Example: Jehovah’s witnesses are notorious in making arguments against the Trinity by attacking Modalism instead; most unknowingly do so. A common question asked is “if Jesus were God, then who did he pray to in the garden etc?” Trinitarians don’t believe that Jesus is the same person as the Father (like Modalists do) but yet is fully God as are the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

• Argumentum Ad Populum - is also called appeal to majority where someone uses numbers (of adherents to a position) as a sole basis of verification to a proposition. Example: Islam is true because it is the fastest growing religion in the world.

• Genetic Fallacy - is making a conclusion (on someone or something) based solely on the origins rather than its meaning and context. Example:  “You’re a Christian only because you were raised in a Christian home.”
  

• Ad Hominem - is attacking the person (such as calling into question the character of the individual) instead of the argument. Example: “You reject evolution because you’re a Christian and Christians don’t like science”.
  

• Guilt By Association - is making the assertion that because two things share a property they are the same. Example: “Since you are a Bible believing creationist, you believe the earth is 6000 years old”.
  

• Appeal To Authority - is where a claim is deemed true because of the authority of a person that is saying it. Example: “The Bible is false because Bart D. Ehrman said so”.
  

• Cherry Picking - is selectively presenting certain information while suppressing other data of the same topic. Example: I often see Arians cite the passages of scripture where Jesus makes his claims of being human (Son Of Man) while not addressing his claims to being deity (Son Of God).
  

• False Dichotomy - is when someone gives two alternative statements which are asserted as the only two options/answers, when in fact there are others. Example: “If you don’t agree with me then you don’t want to know the truth.”
  

• Non Sequitur - is an argument that has a conclusion which does not follow the premise of the argument. Example: “Since you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, you believe in evolution.”
  

Three Versions To Joseph Smith’s First Vision

If you have ever accepted a Bible study with a Mormon, you undoubtedly have been encouraged to “bear witness” to the truth of the Book of Mormon and ultimately the Mormon faith. One of the most common ways people engage in such a study is to give a barrage of contradictions in the “BOM” countered by the Bible, or show some contradictions to their other “standard works”, but for now we’ll just address the first vision by Joseph Smith. This vision is what started the whole movement to the Mormon faith after all. According to Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe “the First Vision of 1820 is of first importance in the history of Joseph Smith. Upon its reality rest the truth and value of his subsequent work” (1).

I don’t believe that any sincere Mormon in his right mind would reject such a statement but if he did, he’d likely be shown the door, or perhaps he is looking for the handle himself. Most will agree that for Mr. Smith to be considered a true prophet, one would assert that his accounts, dreams, and visions etc would have to be accurate, timeless, and consistent. In reality, how can a potential “trial by jury” put faith in a testimony that has evolved over time? Any form of discrepancy will speed up the verdict and really, that’s what we want anyways, right? If you’re reading this, then there’s a good chance that you would like to know the truth of this subject sooner than later. Now, the Mormons are taught that Joseph Smith only had one account of his first vision and that both God and Jesus appeared to him in the woods.

The problem is that there are two other accounts (yes three total) of the same vision! The very first was penned by Smith in his 1831 journal after over a decade of his encounter. This account had been suppressed by the Mormon church for 130 years but due to “circumstances” they were forced to address what had previously been repressed. In this version of the vision only Jesus was present (read below).

1. Jesus Only:

“… the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in the attitude of calling upon the Lord in the 16th year of my age a piller [sic] of light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph my son thy sins are forgiven thee, go [sic] thy way walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed [sic] for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life behold the world lieth in sin at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside [sic] from the gospel and keep not my commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them according to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which hath been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it was w[r]itten of me in the cloud clothed in the glory of my Father….” -Smith’s 1831 Journal

“Brigham Young University Studies” published a picture of Smith’s journal in the Spring 1969 issue, page 281. To see a picture CLICK HERE.

2.Angels Only:

Another account (picture on left) shows Smith recalling his visitation from angels (1852 Deseret News May 29th). In a 1855 sermon by Brigham Young he voiced (picture on right) a similar statement (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.171).

3. Jesus And His Father (officially accepted version):

“…It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other–This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him! My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light…” -Pearl of Great Price

So to recap, we have Joseph Smith’s first vision consisting of three versions (below). Ask a Mormon why the third account is the one that is officially recognized and the other two are disregarded.

1. Only Jesus present (Smith’s 1831 journal)

2. Only angels present (1852 Deseret News May 29th, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.171)

3. Both God the Father and Jesus present (Pearl of Great Price)

Here’s a quote to consider on the truth of Mormonism:

“Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith.He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned,or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground.“If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect. The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures.” -Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pg. 188

***

References:

1. 1951Joseph Smith—Seeker After Truth, pg.19

A special thanks goes out to Jerald (RIP) and Sandra Tanner for their incredible research and commitment to reveal truth.

The Shroud Of Turin Is Real!

Below is the link to a very interesting radio interview about the Shroud of Turin, said to be Jesus. The guest (Barrie M. Schwortz) who is a Jew, believes that the image on the shroud really is Jesus! His team’s analysis of it have been written about in various journals.

http://avraudio.nwoinfo.com/marzulli-03-24-10.mp3

Facts and information about the Shroud of Turin:

• The Shroud of Turin is first century linen manufactured in the ancient method, not woven in the medieval or modern method.

• It bears the image of a man front and back that was scourged. It has about 120 blood stained markings, wounds that are dumbbell shaped which are consistent with the flagrum of a Roman whip with 3 throngs and dumbbell shape weights at the end of it.

• The individual had been speared in the side. With ultra violet florescent photography it can be seen that there’s a large serum stain surrounding the blood which is invisible to the naked eye (this can’t be faked with medieval technology).

• The man was clearly crucified, the exit wound (from the nail) was at the palm, and at an angle, which happens to be forensically (as attested by 3 forensics experts, how long have forensics existed?) accurate to that of a crucified victim.

• There are blood stains on the head, front and back, consistent from a crown of thorns. There’s only one place in recorded history where Romans placed a crown of thorns on a crucified victim, and that was the account of Jesus.

• The image on the shroud contains encoded spacial (3D) depth information, in which, paintings never contain such information. Only a computer can render this (this can’t be faked with medieval technology).

• The image on the shroud is a positive with lights and darks reversed, like a photographic negative does (this can’t be faked with medieval technology). Schwortz said that you can’t make a photographic image without silver -in a certain form- but when the shroud was fully examined and tested, no trace of silver was found.

• Schwortz explained how the Luigi Garlaschelli made shroud (which was said to “debunk” the shroud of Turin) is not even a close replica. “LG” claims that the image was made by red iron oxide pigment, but it was found in minute insignificant quantities on the various parts on the cloth (on the image, and other areas). The scientific tests (via Pyrolysis Mass Spectrometry) concluded that there was no manganese, cobalt properties and other data to confirm LG’s claim. No image to date, has been close to having the same physical and chemical properties as the shroud, no one has came even close. Note: Here’s the peer reviewed paper on the study http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proce…mburgerWeb.pdf

• Schwortz mentioned a face cloth (The Sudarium of Oviedo Spain) -which dates back to the 6th century without a break in its historical record- and it has blood stains that are congruent (matching up exactly) to the head of the shroud. This is the matching burial face cloth to the shroud. This can be witnessed on the History Channel Documentary I cited earlier.

• He brought up the old Hungarian manuscript called the “Hungarian Pray Codex” that depicts the picture of the shroud including the “L shape” burn marks on it, herring bone weave of the cloth, and certain blood stains that parallel those on the shroud. The date of this codex is from 1191, when the carbon date test (more on this later) said that it can’t be from any earlier than 1260-1390.

• In the year 2000, some researchers brought some information to the table, questioning where the sample was taken from on the shroud; the sample that was used for the carbon dating test. It was found that that area of the cloth was chemically different, it had been repaired, cotton was rewoven into it, and dye was added to the surface after it was rewoven to match the rest of the color of the cloth. This information was published in 2005 in a peer reviewed scientific journal called the Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2, Pages 189-194., by the man (and corroborated by associate Raymond N. Rogers) who was the head chemist (of Schwortz’s team, Robert Villarreal of Los Alamos National Laboratory) showing that the sample dated, was not an original piece. The paper concludes: “Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometryresults from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.”http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF There have been multiple peer reviewed papers since this one, that have confirmed this analysis.

•  Another reason why the carbon test wouldn’t likely work anyways, is because the accuracy is compromised by 100′s of years of people handling the shroud (leaving their DNA), the fires it went through (adding carbon) etc. In effect, it’s “tainted”.

• Schwortz explained that through analysis, the blood stains were already on the shroud before the image was formed. That would mean that the “forger” would have to put the blood stains on forensically correct before he/she put the image on the cloth. We still couldn’t do that today.

•  Schwortz explained that when putting the shroud under 10x magnification it was shown that there were no brush strokes, particulates, no paint, no medium etc. Another proof showing the image was not made by ink.

• From the 3D rendered holographic of the shroud image, it was shown that the individual was in rigamortis. This was confirmed by forensic experts as well.

Quotations

We know him (God) by two means:

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20. All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.

Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

-The Belgic Confession Article 2.