Perhaps I should have waited a couple more days for him to finish the posting.

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.

The subject of the post is that the selvedge is overwhelming evidence that the Turin Shroud is authentic. This is yet another part of the problem for the forgery theory, that the Shroud is not medieval (see #1,#3, #4, #5).

As we saw above, the two selvedges running down the lengthwise borders of the Shroud prove beyond reasonable doubt that: 1) and the main body of the Shroud and the sidestrip were evidently cut lengthwise from a larger cloth and then joined to form a composite cloth which became the Shroud, with the combined dimensions of 8 x 2 Assyrian standard cubits (see also Dimensions #3); 2) the cloth that the Shroud and sidestrip were cut from had evidently been woven on a wide loom, which existed in the Roman Period but not in the Middle Ages; 3) the sophisticated weaving and tailoring of the Shroud points to it having been manufactured in a textile `factory‘ which are known from Roman period Egypt and Syria but not from the Middle Ages; and 4)the unusual stitching, binding and finishing of the selvedges is, like the stitching of the seam joining the sidestrip to the main body of the Shroud (see Sidestrip #5), known only from the first century Jewish fortress of Masada.

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. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests.