Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity and the End Times
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 1748 (835844)
07-02-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by PaulK
07-02-2018 11:20 AM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
Faith writes:
And even your comment about the Messiah coming after the first 49 years needs support. Which of your two messiahs and when did he appear?
If you weren’t too busy ignoring what I wrote - and repeating the same obvious error even after I explained it again shows that you were - then you’d already have seen the support and know.
You could even work it out yourself easily enough.
Well, I do have such a different scenario in mind I probably did miss your way of working out your own, so please forgive me for missing it, and for the sake of improving communication and defending your own point of view, please repeat your calculations.
But since you haven't answered shall I suppose you can't relate your scenario to the seventy weeks prophecy at all?
Since you haven’t given any reason to think that Daniel 9 meant to use an uncorrected 360 day year, or any valid reason to suppose that there is a gap in the 490 years, or any valid reason to think that Daniel 11 suddenly changes subject or any reason to think that the actual Roman Empire could make a comeback - despite having far more time and continuing to post to this topic - may I assume that you have no answer ?
All that is irrelevant to the question I'm asking you, so I continue to suppose you are just avoiding the fact that you have no answer. Which you can't have because there is no way the seventy weeks have anything to do with the Maccabean period.
It is sufficient for my scenario that the sixty-nine weeks counts to the lifetime of Jesus no matter which starting point is used, and no matter which calendar is used, and there is no getting around that. There is nothing whatever in your scenario that fulfills any of the seventy week prophecy, not one part of it.
Sinking to this level is only proof of your desperation.
Well I'm very certain of my interpretation and if anybody is desperate I would suppose it must be you because you continue to avoid the glaring fact that your Maccabean scenario fits nothing whatever in the seventy weeks prophecy. All your accusations and carrying on serve only to put up a smokescreen as far as I can see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 11:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 2:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 1748 (835846)
07-02-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by PaulK
07-02-2018 11:37 AM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
Anyway the seventy weeks.
Ah, at last.
As I said the endpoint is the Maccabean revolt with the murder of Onaias marking the start of the last seven years.
OK So now you have to get TO the Maccabean revolt.
The case for this is very strong unlike the argument that there are an extra 280 sevens or more that just happened to get left out of the prophecy for no apparent reason.
But that is a huge straw man since I've said nothing about an extra 280 sevens. All the seventy weeks prophecy is fulfilled in what I've described up through the coming of the Messiah, and the only thing left out is the last week, seven years, which is understood to be yet future. Please stick to justifying your own scenario instead of making false accusations against mine.
The dates don’t really work out whether through error in the author’s part or a schematic system that doesn’t match actual history. Since the 70 likely comes from Jeremiah’s 70 years it may be schematic (the chapter opens with a reading from Jeremiah).
Oh the dates work out fine for anybody who isn't determined to make a mess of them. We get to the time of Jesus by them. Yes, Jeremiah's prophecy launches the new prophecy but seventy years is not seventy sevens of years. The Babylonian Captivity is coming to an end after seventy years and Daniel has just discovered that by reading the book of Jerimiah, and now he is being introduced to a prophecy of things to come after the end of the captivity.
If the 49th year is intended to be Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon then the start date works out to be about right for a prophecy of Jeremiah (it is in the period he was active) as I have previously suggested.
This is very confused. You are making Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years for the duration of the Babylonian Captivity into your starting date for the seventy weeks? And believe me it took me some doing even to figure this much out. Is there anything in Jeremiah's prophecy that suggests a command or decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, because that is the starting point given for the seventy weeks. You don't quote it which requires me to look it up but if I do that now I know from experience I'll lose my post so I'll have to do it later. I've never seen any reference whatever to Jeremiah's prophecy as related to the command to rebuild Jerusalem so I think it's fairly safe to assume it isn't there. The command has to be one of the four quoted in the commentary I posted earlier on this thread, only one of which actually mentions the city, the others being about rebuilding the temple. You have NO justification for making Jeremiah your starting point. No wonder the timing is such a mess if you start from there.
Then you've got Cyrus' conquest of Babylon as the 49th year or first seven weeks of the seventy weeks prophecy? How did you arrive at that? Oh, it's "in the period when he was active?" In other words it doesn't work at all, even if it made sense. What does Cyrus' conquest have to do with the seventy weeks' prophecy? You make him into the Messiah I guess? But even the 49 years you claim for that doesn't work. Well I see that your timing is even more confused than I expected it to be. It doesn't work, period.;
The end date, on the other hand ought to be about 98BC. That is obviously wrong,
Anything calculated from Jeremiah is going to be wrong in relation to anything in Daniel's prophecies, but why not give us the numbers so we can see how wrong?
...but given that we know the intended end date,
Well there's your problem, you are assuming an intended end date based on your own misreading of the prophecies. It doesn't fit and you make that the fault of the prophecy?
Your problem is that Daniel 9 doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period. You are imposing the other prophecies that ARE about that period onto this one which isn't about it. There isn't the slightest relation to the Maccabean period in Daniel 9. None of the seventy weeks has anything to do with the Maccabean period.
...the only alternative to assuming that the dates are wrong or schematic is to find alternative interpretations which do fit and I am not aware of any plausible options.
Well, you are right, there aren't any plausible options once you've decided that the Maccabean period is the intended end date.
Well, thank you for spelling all that out after all so I can get a better idea of how wrong it is. No wonder I kept ignoring it, I couldn't make any sense of it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 11:37 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 2:32 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 108 of 1748 (835847)
07-02-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
07-02-2018 12:39 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
quote:
It works beautifully.
Funny how you always say that about stuff that doesn’t really work at all.
quote:
Oh but we do.
Funny how you abandoned the discussion then, with no real explanation of how there could be a continuous Roman Empire or any explanation of why later empires were excluded. Until you manage that you have no viable list. Your future empire must be a new one, and the Ottomans at least must be included. Probably the Sasanians, too and the British. Last time I looked eight is not four.
quote:
You are right to focus on Antiochus Epiphanes' defeat by the Maccabees as a major part of the prophetic picture but you are wrong to ignore Daniel 9 which shows the bigger context of the coming of the Messiah and the fourth empire
I am not ignoring it. I just reject your interpretation because you ignore too much of it and it’s relation to the other prophecies.
quote:
Since you obviously can't show any timing from the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 to support your scenario you are missing the big picture by trying to squeeze it all into the prophecies concerning the Maccabean period. It doesn't fit. Because Daniel 7 and 9 contradict it.
You can’t squeeze it in either. The only thing you have is the rough calculation of the date of Jesus’ death. The rest all fails. Daniel 7 does not contradict it and Daniel 9 agrees more than it disagrees. Not to mention Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12
quote:
The Maccabean period is spelled out in some detail but if you leave out the greater context of the fourth empire and the coming of the Messiah you miss that it's meant to be a foreshadowing of something far bigger, which we know by the description of the fourth empire as more terrible than all the others, and far off in the future, which we know because of that unfulfilled final week.
The fact that the prophecy failed hardly proves that your interpretation is right.
quote:
And this bigger picture depends entirely on understanding the meaning of the seventy weeks. Since you slight that one major prophecy you are missing the big picture and reducing the prophetic meaning of Daniel to a small local event in which Israel prevails over its enemy, which is in reality intended to foreshadow the end of the world and the triumph of God in Jesus Christ which will bring ALL history to an end.
60 years is a much smaller error than 2000 years. Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 confirm that the end of the world was meant to occur in the Maccabean revolt, and Daniel 7 is consistent with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 12:39 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 3:22 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 11:34 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 109 of 1748 (835848)
07-02-2018 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
07-02-2018 12:56 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
quote:
All that is irrelevant to the question I'm asking you, so I continue to suppose you are just avoiding the fact that you have no answer. Which you can't have because there is no way the seventy weeks have anything to do with the Maccabean period.
On the contrary. The question is whether you are prepared to be held to the same standard - or in fact a considerably more lenient one. The answer is that you are not.
quote:
It is sufficient for my scenario that the sixty-nine weeks counts to the lifetime of Jesus no matter which starting point is used, and no matter which calendar is used, and there is no getting around that. There is nothing whatever in your scenario that fulfills any of the seventy week prophecy, not one part of it.
And that is an outright lie. I not only have very good candidates for the messiahs, i also have the city being stormed, and the sacrifice being taken away and the abomination of desolation all in the years directly following a messiah’s death. You don’t.
quote:
Well I'm very certain of my interpretation and if anybody is desperate I would suppose it must be you because you continue to avoid the glaring fact that your Maccabean scenario fits nothing whatever in the seventy weeks prophecy. All your accusations and carrying on serve only to put up a smokescreen as far as I can see.
Funny how your accusations apply more to your own conduct. I at least have not stooped to lies, double standards, or inventing gaps in the narrative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 12:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 110 of 1748 (835849)
07-02-2018 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Faith
07-02-2018 1:38 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
quote:
But that is a huge straw man since I've said nothing about an extra 280 sevens.
How else do you get to our future ? If you want to say the whole thing was fulfilled in the years immediately following the crucifixion go ahead. But otherwise you need to actually account for those extra years.
quote:
...the only thing left out is the last week, seven years, which is understood to be yet future. Please stick to justifying your own scenario instead of making false accusations against mine.
Well make your mind up. If the fulfilment is in our future you have at least 280 more sevens to account for.
quote:
Oh the dates work out fine for anybody who isn't determined to make a mess of them
The last seven years do not work for you.
quote:
This is very confused. You are making Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years for the duration of the Babylonian Captivity into your starting date for the seventy weeks?
If you make things up your confusion is your own fault. And in fact the entire paragraph is too confused to be worth answering.
quote:
Well there's your problem, you are assuming an intended end date based on your own misreading of the prophecies. It doesn't fit and you make that the fault of the prophecy?
On the contrary, I am basing it on the very clear evidence from Daniel 8 and Daniel 10-12 as you ought to know by now, as well as the fact that much of Daniel 9 does fit.
quote:
Your problem is that Daniel 9 doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period. You are imposing the other prophecies that ARE about that period onto this one which isn't about it. There isn't the slightest relation to the Maccabean period in Daniel 9. None of the seventy weeks has anything to do with the Maccabean period.
That’s your opinion. However since,overall, my interpretation fits much better with the Book of Daniel I disagree with you.
quote:
Well, thank you for spelling all that out after all so I can get a better idea of how wrong it is. No wonder I kept ignoring it, I couldn't make any sense of it.
Your confusion comes from not reading it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 1:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 11:49 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 111 of 1748 (835851)
07-02-2018 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
07-02-2018 2:09 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
Oh but we do. [have a viable list of four empires, which I go on to spell out in much detail.]
Funny how you abandoned the discussion then, with no real explanation of how there could be a continuous Roman Empire or any explanation of why later empires were excluded. Until you manage that you have no viable list.
That is false. I abandoned that discussion because there's only so far one can go with speculations about an unknown future. All the prophecies we've discussed so far have a known fulfillment we can point to -- the historical sequence of the empires, the breakup of Greece and the emergence of Antiochus Epiphanes who is defeated by the Maccabees, and the coming of Jesus Christ and His crucifixion. We also know that the Roman Empire has to be the fourth empire prophesied because that was the empire into which Christ was born. All that is history, not speculative future.
But the idea of a continuation of the Roman Empire into the future has not been fulfilled so everything concerning it can only be speculative and tentative. I don't have to know anything for sure about it, but since I have some ideas about it I have offered them. I( can't prove it because it hasn't come, and I may change my mind about it as time goes on. There is no point in pursuing it further because there is no way to know how it will play out. We have to wait and see.
Your future empire must be a new one, and the Ottomans at least must be included. Probably the Sasanians, too and the British. Last time I looked eight is not four.
You are continuing a discussion that is purely speculative on your part as well as mine. There is no point in pursuing it and I returned to the earlier discussion because it refers to history that we can argue about with more certainty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 2:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 3:43 PM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 112 of 1748 (835852)
07-02-2018 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
07-02-2018 3:22 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
quote:
That is false. I abandoned that discussion because there's only so far one can go with speculations about an unknown future.
We don’t need to look at the future to know your interpretation doesn’t work. The fall of the Roman Empire and the following empires in the region are all history.
And in fact you couldn’t even offer speculations that really addressed the problem that continuity is very thoroughly broken.
quote:
But the idea of a continuation of the Roman Empire into the future has not been fulfilled so everything concerning it can only be speculative and tentative.
The fact that the Roman Empire is so thoroughly gone that any revival would be a new Empire is not speculation.
quote:
You are continuing a discussion that is purely speculative on your part as well as mine.
The existence of all three empires and the fact that they have held the Holy Land at various points in history is not speculation. It is not a problem for my view, but it certainly is for yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 3:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 4:05 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 113 of 1748 (835853)
07-02-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by PaulK
07-02-2018 3:43 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
...the problem that continuity is very thoroughly broken.
that is a problem from your point of view because of your way of looking at the prophecies, but I think there is a fulfillment to come that you can't anticipate, and for that matter I may not be anticipating it all that well either. But I don't want to discuss these speculations with you beyond this point because you don't know and I don't either and besides, your way of dealing with the prophecies is so off the charts wrong there's just no point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 3:43 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Tangle, posted 07-02-2018 4:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 4:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 114 of 1748 (835854)
07-02-2018 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
07-02-2018 4:05 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
Faith writes:
but I think there is a fulfillment to come that you can't anticipate, and for that matter I may not be anticipating it all that well either. But I don't want to discuss these speculations with you beyond this point because you don't know and I don't either
Some fucking prophecy...

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 4:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 115 of 1748 (835855)
07-02-2018 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Faith
07-02-2018 4:05 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
quote:
that is a problem from your point of view because of your way of looking at the prophecies
That’s just reality. The Roman Empire IS gone. There is no continuity of government.
quote:
...besides, your way of dealing with the prophecies is so off the charts wrong there's just no point.
My reading fits the text far better than yours. That’s why it is my reading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 4:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 11:25 PM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 116 of 1748 (835858)
07-02-2018 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by PaulK
07-02-2018 4:18 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
My reading fits the text far better than yours. That’s why it is my reading.
Just a reminder that you garble up Daniel 7 and 9, confusing the Roman little horn with the Greek little horn, and mangling the seventy weeks prophecy which doesn't have anything to do with the Maccabean period you've arbitrarily made your intended goal, ignoring the fact that the weeks do count to Jesus' lifetime instead, and probably exactly to his entry into Jerusalem. But you've got things so confused there's no point in getting into that discussion yet, it would just confuse the confusions all the more.
;
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 4:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2018 12:16 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 117 of 1748 (835859)
07-02-2018 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by PaulK
07-02-2018 2:09 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
PaulK writes:
Faith writes:
You are right to focus on Antiochus Epiphanes' defeat by the Maccabees as a major part of the prophetic picture but you are wrong to ignore Daniel 9 which shows the bigger context of the coming of the Messiah and the fourth empire
I am not ignoring it. I just reject your interpretation because you ignore too much of it and it’s relation to the other prophecies.
Except for the fact that Antiochus is the type or symbol or model for the future Antichrist who is based on the little horn of the fourth empire of Daniel 7, there is no relation to the other prophecies. Daniel 8 and 10-to 12, except for a few verses at the end of each, refer to the Maccabean period, Daniel 7 and 9 refer to the fourth empire and to Jesus Christ, and with the verses at the end of each of the chapters to a future time that hasn't yet come, and that is what you are ignoring.
Is there any point in continuing this discussion? It's very clear by now what our different interpretations are and there doesn't seem to be any way either of us is going to change. You have your scenario, I have mine and we seem to have come to the usual impasse. If there is something in particular you would like me to address I'll take a look at it but beyond that I think I've done it for this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 2:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2018 12:26 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 1748 (835860)
07-02-2018 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by PaulK
07-02-2018 2:32 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
But that is a huge straw man since I've said nothing about an extra 280 sevens.
How else do you get to our future ? If you want to say the whole thing was fulfilled in the years immediately following the crucifixion go ahead. But otherwise you need to actually account for those extra years.
No I don't, I just have to deal with the seventy weeks and all that is left after the crucifixion is the one seventieth week of the prophecy, which has no fulfillment in the time frame you are insisting on and therefore looks to the future.
abe This won't mean anything to you but as I've been immersed in these prophecies on account of this thread -- for which I should thank you by the way since it's allowed me to get more deeply into the Daniel prophecies -- I'm appreciating them a lot more. For instance, because the sixty-ninth week does appear to arrive at the entry into Jerusalem where Jesus announces his Messiahship, and the seventieth week has no fulfillment in that time period, that means everything after that is outside the prophecy of the weeks until the future when the seventy weeks are resumed with the seventieth week. And that means the Church Age in some sense starts after the Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem, includes the crucifixion and the destruction of the temple and most of the city by Titus plus the rest of the New Testament and the following two thousand years of history to the present. But up to and including the entry into Jerusalem we are still in the Daniel prophecy of the seventy weeks, which is mostly addressed to ethnic Israel, and when the seventieth week finally comes around it will be ethnic Israel that again emerges as the Saints of the Most High for the grand finale of the prophecy which was addressed to Daniel's people and city, which will also be the grand finale of planet Earth and then Jesus will return. It's all about time inside and time outside the seventy weeks. Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Really really interesting prophecy going on here. /abe
But again, I'm not sure there is any point in continuing this discussion as I say above, we are just going to keep repeating our separate views.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2018 2:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2018 12:32 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 119 of 1748 (835861)
07-03-2018 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
07-02-2018 11:25 PM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
Empty assertion is no excuse for argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 07-02-2018 11:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 07-03-2018 12:18 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 120 of 1748 (835862)
07-03-2018 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by PaulK
07-03-2018 12:16 AM


Re: None of your claims fits the prophecies
It wasn't intended as argument, it's a summary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 07-03-2018 12:16 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024