Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 04-11-2002, 07:30 AM

Two side issues:

1)Exactly 5 years ago today there was a fire in
the church where the Shroud is kept in Turin. No
damage was suffered by the Shroud. Unlike the fire
of the 16th(?) Century whereby the Shroud WAS burned (the burn marks are VERY visible today).

2)Someone ages ago (Boro Nut on page 4?)mentioned
about the significance of exhibiting it in Turin
as opposed to the Vatican. I discovered recently that when King Umberto II died and left the Shroud
to the Holy See it was with the stipulation that it remain in Turin. That was over 2 decades ago.

Cheers!

leonarde · 04-11-2002, 07:46 AM

Again about the authenticity questions: when I
introduced them on page 10, even THEN I thought it
very late in the day but I figured it was useful
for anyone trying to figure out what I
meant by "authenticity". Koy, on the other hand,
at one point said "Who said anything about authenticity?". That's the problem: page after page after page of ad hoc argumentation without any real concept of what was really being argued
about. From time to time I have re-read stretches
of this thread and the ONLY thing Koy is interested in is question # 4: is it Jesus or not?
THAT is what is behind his indifference (Who said
anything about authenticity?)to the other elements.
I am not going to re-argue all the points:
[b]most of what I posted from pages 3 to 18 has
to do with questions 1 and 2. Some had to do
with question 3 (the pollen and the coins-over-the-eyes).
I touched, but only glancingly, on question # 4
a few times.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2002, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde: Koy,
I should have mentioned that Delage's theories
about the mechanisms of Image formation are considered passe (Vaporography and/or Direct Contact) and have been for at least 20 years.
See my remarks on page 4 of this thread. It is
his evaluation of the anatomical trueness of the
body features and wounds which has stood the test
of time....
Cheers!

"Passe" and not "wrong," eh?

leonarde, I am not interested in any ancillary commentary of this nature. No offense, it just doesn't address any of the arguments I made. Quote me directly and then offer on-point counter refutation if you please.

As for your caveat regarding translations ("the question of authenticity will not be resolved by looking at the Greek"), that is likewise rejected as invalid for three reasons:
<ol type="1">[*] What the "historical documents" say has no bearing on whether or not the shroud depicts an actual crucifixion victim (i.e., "is it authentic") or if it's a hoax, so please do not further attempt to equivocate "authenticity" and "is it Jesus," because those are two entirely different things.[*] Since the logical conclusion of your argument regarding translations is that not a single version of the bible can ultimately, therefore, be trusted, you must either accept the authority of the majority of the translators or reject the bible in total.[*] The argument regarding the "historical documents" (aka, the Gospel of John) does not hinge upon which translation is "correct" at all, but goes to what Bucklin, Meacham, et al., turned to for "identification" purposes.[/list=a]

What Bucklin, et al., read and were taught and subsequently relied upon as investigative evidence for his/their conclusions is at issue, not what the Greek may or may not literally translate into, since Bucklin, et al., did not base their "historical documents" standard upon the original greek and are/were not experts in greek translation!

Sorry, but I will not allow any more plate spinning in this regard.

The experts in greek translation that interpreted the most likely sources Bucklin, etal., turned to--the KJV, American Standard and/or the NIV--all state that the author of the GJohn says the body was wrapped/bound in "strips of linen."

By the way, the most important verse is not John 20:5 or 6, but John 19:40.

I have posted seven versions in order to firmly establish a majority consensus among translators. If you have any issues, then I suggest you take it up with them, not me.

The pertinent information is bolded:

John 19:40 King James Version (KJV): Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

New International Version (NIV): Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.

New American Standard Bible (NASB): So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

New King James Version (NKJV): Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury.

Revised Standard Version (RSV): They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.

21st Century King James Version (KJV21): Then took they the body of Jesus and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the manner of the Jews for burial.

Young's Literal Translation (YLT): They took, therefore, the body of Jesus, and bound it with linen clothes with the spices, according as it was the custom of the Jews to prepare for burial.

Every single one of those bibles had a team of translators that carefully and systematically applied their expertise to the most accurate translation possible and every single one of those teams agreed that the author of GJohn (allegedly, ultimately, God, BTW) states that Joseph and Nicodemus bound and/or wrapped the body of Jesus in strips/cloths of linen.

Now, on to John 20. I will present the exact same translations for versus 4 through 7 from the KJV, NASB and NIV for brevity's sake, so that there is no question at all about what these teams of biblical translators agreed upon.

It should also be strongly noted that these three versions are not just the most widely read versions, but the NIV is widely considered to be among the most exact translations available:

John 20:4-7 KJV:
4 So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Take particular note of the fact that they both see "linen clothes" (plural) and that the "napkin, that was about his head" was not included with those linen clothes.

NASB:
4 The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first;
5 and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in.
6 And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there,
7 and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself.

Same observations as to the KJV.

In these two versions from two different teams of biblical scholars, we see that both men see a pile of linen clothes/wrappings (plural) in one pile and the "napkin that was about his head/face-cloth which had been on His head" in another pile.

No question at all that there are two separate piles; one containing body strips/wrappings and one containing a head cloth/napkin used to bind the head.

NO SINGLE, HEAD-TO-TOE BURIAL SHROUD AT ALL.

Now, let's turn to the NIV:

NIV: 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in.
6 Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there,
7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Absolutely no question whatsoever that the body was wrapped in strips of linen that are found in a pile and the head was wrapped in a separate burial cloth.

Let's repeat that. The "historical documents" upon which Bucklin, Meacham, et al., are basing their conclusion (that the image on the shroud is Jesus) tells us all that Jesus was not covered in a single burial sheet from head to toe.

That, in fact (if "God" and the author of the GJohn and the seven teams of expert biblical translators represented here are to be trusted) the body of Jesus was bound/wrapped with strips (plural), strips of linen and the only one-piece burial shroud used was wrapped around his head.

This is what the "historical documents" that Bucklin, Meacham, et al. (and that includes Delage, BTW), tell us is the contingent link to their conclusions (that the image on the shroud is Jesus) says: there was no single burial shroud that covered the entire body.

I don't point this out to prove anything to you, leonarde, in case you're wondering. I point this out as a fatal indictment of your sources and as definitive proof that the Gospel of John--the only gospel to tell us about a side piercing--should have proven to Bucklin, Meacham, et at., that the shroud could not have been Jesus'.

In other words, when Bucklin, et al., concludes that the "historical documents" parallel or point to or suggest or demonstrate or imply or coincide with the forensic, anatomical, pathological findings, such observations are entirely and utterly irrelevant due to the fact that the same "historical documents" prove that there never was a single, head to toe burial shroud for Jesus.

So, once you are done with establishing that the shroud is, in fact, an image of an actual human being who was crucified in the first century, then and only then will you have to reconcile the fact that the only Gospel to "match" the forensic evidence states (unequivocably) that no such single, head-to-toe burial shroud ever existed.

As stated earlier in this post, no calls to "mistranslation" will be tolerated until you can prove:
<ol type="A">[*] that the teams of biblical scholars that translated all of the above versions of the bible know less koine Greek than do you in order to indict them or their translation in any way[*] the relevance of such indictment, considering that your forensic sources based their own conclusions upon at least one of those standard translations[/list=a]

As for the "Living Parable Bible" you quoted from, I could not find such a beast in any search on either Yahoo or Google.

I did, however find this, the "<a href="http://www.thesumners.com/bible/versions/liv.html" target="_blank">Living Bible</a>," or LIV, translated by a Dr. Kenneth Taylor and published in 1971 (the NT in 1962) as a "paraphrase of the American Standard Version; written in an attempt to help his children better understand the Bible." (<a href="http://www.thesumners.com/bible/versions/liv.html" target="_blank">source</a>).

If this is the same bible you are refering to then perhaps you could address the following, taken from the <a href="http://www.thesumners.com/bible/versions/index.html" target="_blank">Bible Shelf</a> website.

It is a discussion of the method of translation (<a href="http://www.thesumners.com/bible/methods3.html" target="_blank">paraphrase</a>) Dr. Taylor used and favors (emphasis mine):

Quote:

Paraphrase - The most liberal translation philosophy, the paraphraser often translates from one English version to another, with little or no attention to the original Greek or Hebrew.

Since a paraphrase is further down the spectrum from dynamic equivalence (word-for-word), it shares many of the same strengths and weaknesses - though greatly magnified. The translator has great freedom to portray what he or she believes the original author intended - or, what the original English translator intended. A word or phrase or entire thought may be restated in an entirely new way, so that its meaning is better understood.

At the same time, doing things brings the translator's interpretation to nearly equal ground with the original author's work. There is often little attempt to retain the original author's words, so long as the same ideas are portrayed. The translator becomes interpretter.

Take, for example, this famous passage, as presented in The Living Bible:

Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is - nothing exists that he didn't make. Eternal life is in him, and this life gives light to all mankind. His life is the light that shines through the darkness - and the darkness can never extinguish it. [John 1:1-5, LIV]

Compare the New International Version's edition:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

The Living Bible replaces "the Word" (Greek logos) with "Christ" and "Jesus Christ" throughout John 1. Although theologically agreeable to all Christians, this move is highly interpretive.

To further see the stylistic liberties that a paraphraser often takes, let's look at another well-known verse in several different translations:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. [John 1:14, KJV]

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. [John 1:14, NIV]

And Christ became a human being and lived here on earth among us and was full of loving foregiveness and truth. And some of us have seen his glory - the glory of the only Son of the heavenly Father! [John 1:14, LIV]

The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood. We saw the glory with our own eyes, the one-of-a-kind glory, like Father, like Son, generous inside and out, true from start to finish. [John 1:14, The Message]

The last two translations, both paraphrases, do not translate the passage based on an original Greek manuscript tradition. Instead, they seek to make the passage more readable and easier for a modern audience to understand. This should be one of the goals of every translation, but paraphrases go too far to sacrifice textual accuracy for readability. They ought to rather be considered interpretations of Scripture - much like a commentary - than Scripture itself.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2002, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde: Who said anything about authenticity?". That's the problem: page after page after page of ad hoc argumentation without any real concept of what was really being argued
about. From time to time I have re-read stretches
of this thread and the ONLY thing Koy is interested in is question # 4: is it Jesus or not?

Here we go again!

STOP EQUIVOCATING THE WORD "AUTHENTICITY" WITH "JESUS!"

They are two separate issues.

<ol type="1">[*] Is the shroud authentic, meaning that it is not a hoax; that it is an actual burial shroud of a human being who was in fact crucified?[*] Once that is established, is the man Jesus?[/list=a]

If the shroud is just some poor dumb bastard that was crucified, then who cares? That was the argument I was making and stick by.

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

leonarde · 04-11-2002, 08:55 AM

Koy,
In almost EVERY SINGLE POST of yours YOU have been talking about Jesus and Jesus exclusively. What do you think the Gospels
are about, the price of myrrh in Judea? No, they
are the story of Jesus' life, death and (alleged)
Resurrection. From your very first posts YOU have been conflating "authenticity" and
identification of the Man of the Shroud with Jesus. I, however, tried to distinguish LEVELS of
authenticity with my 3-level, and more recently
4-level system.
If anyone still believes that the Greek of the NT
makes the Shroud impossible as Jesus' burial cloth
so be it but as I told Spin many, many pages ago,
that is not what MOST investigators believe. In
fact, even among Shroud debunkers THAT is very much an ancillary question. The authenticity question centers on the physical
evidence for the most part. ALL of it, with the
exception of the C-14 tests, points to authenticity (of levels 1 to 3).

Cheers!

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

Koyaanisqatsi · 04-11-2002, 09:21 AM

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

What I have been concerned with is in fact the link to Jesus, but that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCY TO WHAT ANYONE ELSE ON THIS THREAD MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH!

You are the one that keeps conflating "authenticity" and "Jesus" and I have been attempting to stop you from doing so.

Evidence: "the question of authenticity will not be resolved by looking at the Greek."

You have equivocated "authenticity" (i.e., is the shroud an actual burial cloth of an actual man) with "looking at the Greek" (is the burial shroud Jesus'?)

Sci has attempted (repeat, attempted) to narrow the focus down and I have simply added my concerns into the mix.

First you must establish that the shroud is an actual burial shroud of an actual crucified man from the 1st century before anything else can be discussed!

Is that clear?

ONCE YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED ITS AUTHENTICITY (I.E., THAT IT IS NOT A HOAX AND IS IN FACT AN ACTUAL BURIAL SHROUD OF AN ACTUAL CRUCIFIXION VICTIM FROM THE 1ST CENTURY) THEN, AND ONLY THEN CAN WE DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS JESUS' BURIAL SHROUD.

That is the chronology of proof Sci was trying to establish and I was addending.

<ol type="1">[*] Is it authentic (an actual burial shroud of an actual crucified man from the 1st century)?[*] Is that actual crucified man depicted on that authentic burial shroud, Jesus?[/list=a]

THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. I HAVE ONLY BEEN CONCERNED WITH NUMBER 2.

Is that perfectly, crystal clear?

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Pomp · 04-11-2002, 11:26 AM

Enough. My heart sinks every time I see new posts here. Due to excessive lack of civility, I'm locking this thread.

I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the Shroud to start a new thread. Hopefully, a fresh start will inspire us all the be a bit more civil.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2002, 07:30 AM	#441
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Two side issues: 1)Exactly 5 years ago today there was a fire in the church where the Shroud is kept in Turin. No damage was suffered by the Shroud. Unlike the fire of the 16th(?) Century whereby the Shroud WAS burned (the burn marks are VERY visible today). 2)Someone ages ago (Boro Nut on page 4?)mentioned about the significance of exhibiting it in Turin as opposed to the Vatican. I discovered recently that when King Umberto II died and left the Shroud to the Holy See it was with the stipulation that it remain in Turin. That was over 2 decades ago. Cheers!

04-11-2002, 07:46 AM	#442
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Again about the authenticity questions: when I introduced them on page 10, even THEN I thought it very late in the day but I figured it was useful for anyone trying to figure out what I meant by "authenticity". Koy, on the other hand, at one point said "Who said anything about authenticity?". That's the problem: page after page after page of ad hoc argumentation without any real concept of what was really being argued about. From time to time I have re-read stretches of this thread and the ONLY thing Koy is interested in is question # 4: is it Jesus or not? THAT is what is behind his indifference (Who said anything about authenticity?)to the other elements. I am not going to re-argue all the points: [b]most of what I posted from pages 3 to 18 has to do with questions 1 and 2. Some had to do with question 3 (the pollen and the coins-over-the-eyes). I touched, but only glancingly, on question # 4 a few times. Cheers!

04-11-2002, 08:55 AM	#445
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Koy, In almost EVERY SINGLE POST of yours YOU have been talking about Jesus and Jesus exclusively. What do you think the Gospels are about, the price of myrrh in Judea? No, they are the story of Jesus' life, death and (alleged) Resurrection. From your very first posts YOU have been conflating "authenticity" and identification of the Man of the Shroud with Jesus. I, however, tried to distinguish LEVELS of authenticity with my 3-level, and more recently 4-level system. If anyone still believes that the Greek of the NT makes the Shroud impossible as Jesus' burial cloth so be it but as I told Spin many, many pages ago, that is not what MOST investigators believe. In fact, even among Shroud debunkers THAT is very much an ancillary question. The authenticity question centers on the physical evidence for the most part. ALL of it, with the exception of the C-14 tests, points to authenticity (of levels 1 to 3). Cheers! [ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

04-11-2002, 09:21 AM	#446
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> What I have been concerned with is in fact the link to Jesus, but that has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCY TO WHAT ANYONE ELSE ON THIS THREAD MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH! You are the one that keeps conflating "authenticity" and "Jesus" and I have been attempting to stop you from doing so. Evidence: "the question of authenticity will not be resolved by looking at the Greek." You have equivocated "authenticity" (i.e., is the shroud an actual burial cloth of an actual man) with "looking at the Greek" (is the burial shroud Jesus'?) Sci has attempted (repeat, attempted) to narrow the focus down and I have simply added my concerns into the mix. First you must establish that the shroud is an actual burial shroud of an actual crucified man from the 1st century before anything else can be discussed! Is that clear? ONCE YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED ITS AUTHENTICITY (I.E., THAT IT IS NOT A HOAX AND IS IN FACT AN ACTUAL BURIAL SHROUD OF AN ACTUAL CRUCIFIXION VICTIM FROM THE 1ST CENTURY) THEN, AND ONLY THEN CAN WE DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS JESUS' BURIAL SHROUD. That is the chronology of proof Sci was trying to establish and I was addending. <ol type="1">[] Is it authentic (an actual burial shroud of an actual crucified man from the 1st century)?[] Is that actual crucified man depicted on that authentic burial shroud, Jesus?[/list=a] THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. I HAVE ONLY BEEN CONCERNED WITH NUMBER 2. Is that perfectly, crystal clear? [ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

04-11-2002, 11:26 AM	#447
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Enough. My heart sinks every time I see new posts here. Due to excessive lack of civility, I'm locking this thread. I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the Shroud to start a new thread. Hopefully, a fresh start will inspire us all the be a bit more civil.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.