Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inerrancy of the Bible 2
lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 106 of 118 (180985)
01-26-2005 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
01-26-2005 10:52 PM


Re: I think it says it in Exodus 16:35
Jar,
Well, I thought I would have a better chance than if I said something like, "Phat, you should post this in Brian's exodus thread so you can see it blown out of the water!" heh
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 01-26-2005 10:52 PM jar has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 107 of 118 (180986)
01-26-2005 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by lfen
01-26-2005 10:28 PM


lfen, God takes the credit for the binding of the Pleiades, and the loosing of Orion. The lights in the firmament are to divide day and night, for signs, seasons, days, months, and years. kjv genesis 1:14.
Why did the writer of Job 4,000 years ago pen those words, despite having no idea what they referred to? "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?"
Account Suspended
ORION & PLEIADES - AN IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE
Here is an interesting difference! The Orion open star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. In contrast, the Pleiades cluster stars are gravitationally bound, and will survive a billion years.
DID YOU KNOW that we were told this 4000 years ago?
Where? What great astronomer of old knew this?
. . . Only one whom it could have been - "Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?" ...These words in the Bible (Job 38:31) were written about 4000 years ago, but no-one then knew what they meant. It is only recently that we realised the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart, the cords of gravity being too loose to restrain them.
Now, how did the writer of Job know that 4,000 years ago? This is another example of how we can trust the Bible, which is full of fulfilled prophecies. We can recognise God's awesome creative power. He is never wrong.
This message has been edited by Tom, 01-26-2005 23:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by lfen, posted 01-26-2005 10:28 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Coragyps, posted 01-26-2005 11:28 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 108 of 118 (180989)
01-26-2005 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by johnfolton
01-26-2005 11:10 PM


The Orion open star cluster is loose and disintegrating
Well, that, and it never was all a cluster, in any case. The two brightest stars there are just along that line of sight, and most of the other naked-eye stars are in four different clusters, not one. But other than all those messy facts, yeah, sure. If I ever get leprosy, I'll be sure to trust the Bible and kill a pigeon over a bowl of water, too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by johnfolton, posted 01-26-2005 11:10 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 109 of 118 (180994)
01-27-2005 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by JonF
01-26-2005 6:48 PM


Re: I think it says it in Exodus 16:35
Well, he certainly is no archelogist.. and anybody that gets mixed up with the IRC is not quite sane.
TEll me, did you actually READ that web site.. searching for noahs ark, and all that sort of nonsense.
He might be 'honest'.. but he sure has some weird, unsubstantiated beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by JonF, posted 01-26-2005 6:48 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Phat, posted 01-27-2005 6:05 AM ramoss has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 110 of 118 (181037)
01-27-2005 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by ramoss
01-27-2005 12:21 AM


Biblical Inerrency: Noah
ramoss writes:
TEll me, did you actually READ that web site.. searching for noahs ark, and all that sort of nonsense.
Quite honestly, ramoss, no I merely grazed it and posted it.
Basic issue: Is the Bible given as is? Is there no way to improve the message that this book has for us?
In my own mind, the verdict is inconclusive in regards to the impact and depth of the Bible. As I have preached before, I believe that a lot of how one views reality is based upon how one views the history of the origins of humanity. If you were to ask me flat out if there was once a man who actually built a boat, collected a bunch of animals, and ended up high on a mountain in Turkey which...if you calculate the height would place quite a lot of water over the planet, I would say that what you state makes a lot of sense. My view, and my belief, are that God exists and is alive and personal. The issue is not 6000 years vs 15 billion. The issue is do I believe that God created everything? The issue is not a literal flood. The issue is to ask oneself what is the parable...the moral...and the meaning of this story? The issue is about trust. Why do I trust in my belief?
Let us examine the definition of reality. What is reality? How does life appear--to you?
The dictionary defines reality as
that which is real; an actual thing, situation, or event.
Such is reality in terms of objective analysis. But reality is not just objective, there is also a subjective or personal side to reality which is rooted in our feelings, attitudes, and beliefs. Lets take belief in God, Jesus, the Bible, and Spiritual warfare.
1) Biblical Inerrency.
C.R.I. writes:
When we talk about the essentials of Christianity we're referring to the basic elements that make up and characterize our faith, and which, of course, separate it from other beliefs. Let's survey these doctrines.
First, we believe in the authority of Scripture, which is another way of saying that the Bible is God's inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word. It's the ultimate source for knowledge about God, as well as the definitive guide for our daily lives.
Next we affirm the existence of a triune God or one God in three distinct persons - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This God is self-existent, eternal, unchanging, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, righteous, and loving. God created the universe from nothing and He rules over His creation sovereignly including both human and angelic beings.
We also hold that man is a physical and spiritual being who is created in God's image. But because of his sin or transgression, man has lost his fellowship with God. The extent of sin is so great that its effects continue to this very day in the form of cruelty, suffering, and death.
By God's grace, Jesus Christ - Who is fully God and fully man - was sent to save us from our bondage to sin. We believe that Christ was born of a virgin, died for our sins, physically rose from the dead, and will one day return to judge the world and deliver His people. Faith in Christ is the only means by which mankind can escape eternal damnation and judgment.
Finally, we recognize the church as God's ordained institution headed by Christ. The church is composed of all believers, and is organized for worship, for fellowship, for the administration of the sacraments, for spiritual growth and support, and for evangelizing the world.
Thus, the first lens presupposes that God is our origin and that we either choose to trace our origin of belief to Him personally, or to human religion and wisdom critically and rationally.
There is no gray area within these thought concepts.
The issue is whether God first existed or whether human wisdom first made up God in storied form.
Biblical Inerrency is really tied in with an absolute idea and belief about God vs an evolving human derived idea.
So how do you tell the difference? I chose to believe, but I believe that He chose me. He was reality before I was.
How do you know? Ask Him.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-27-2005 05:58 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by ramoss, posted 01-27-2005 12:21 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by ramoss, posted 01-27-2005 10:09 AM Phat has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 111 of 118 (181079)
01-27-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Phat
01-27-2005 6:05 AM


Re: Biblical Inerrency: Noah
Well, it's like this. When someone holds onto a belief (I.e. a world wide flood) inspite of the massive amounts of evidence it did not happen , nor could it happen, then, it is irrational.
And, you should have faith in the IPU, don't ask me, ask her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Phat, posted 01-27-2005 6:05 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 01-27-2005 10:49 AM ramoss has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 112 of 118 (181088)
01-27-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by ramoss
01-27-2005 10:09 AM


Re: Biblical Inerrency: Noah
ramoss writes:
Well, it's like this. When someone holds onto a belief (I.e. a world wide flood) inspite of the massive amounts of evidence it did not happen , nor could it happen, then, it is irrational.
First of all, your analogy to the IPU appears flawed.
It is flawed unless YOU can tell me, in all honesty, that you met the IPU and your entire perception of reality was changed.
Second, the issue is NOT about a worldwide flood. Its like that other argument about whether the planet stopped one day. Did it?
In all logical probability, no. The issue is the source of reality.
If God is the source, than anything is possible. See Ramoss, in my world, the IPU COULD theoretically be created by God. In all probability, no. Theoretically, yes. In YOUR world, you can create God..or an IPU...or turn water into wine. In MY world, God created you, knows you better than you know yourself, and exists despite your evidence or acknowledgement of Him.
He does not exist because I imagine Him to exist. He would exist even if I did not. If you believe that there is any essence of soul, spirit, or internal characteristic that seperates humans from the rest of the animals, we can talk. If you do not, wait around until the Dolphins tell you about it. If they are capable of potential communication such as we are, they will not merely tell you about their mate, their food, and the climate. They will tell you about something greater than creation.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-27-2005 08:54 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ramoss, posted 01-27-2005 10:09 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ramoss, posted 01-28-2005 7:44 AM Phat has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 113 of 118 (181284)
01-28-2005 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Incognito
01-23-2005 9:56 AM


Try to keep up!
Hi Incog,
4) "Brian," your 11.69 is not a percent by your description but is in actuality a number.
11.69 is a number, it is the number of people per 1000 that get added on to the popualtion each year. But, if you divide this number by 10, you get 1.169 per 100, surely even you can work out the rest.
So, yes it is a number, but it is a number that makes it very easy to work out the percentage growth.
By 1.169%, you are telling me that either 1000 people only had 11.69 kids a year,
But, no one who has the slightest clue about how population growths are worked out would suggest anything as silly as this.
or else so many people moved out of the Sinai (or died) each year that it only increased in population by 11.69 people annually.
Sweet Jesus, what are you on about?
I am saying that the population grew by 11.69 % per 1000 people, as there was far more than 1000 people living in Egypt at that time, then the population growth would not be 11.69 people annually.
Population growth is worked out by adding the number of births to the group’s starting number, and then deducting the deaths and other ‘losses’ from this total. Therefore, if we have a starting population of 1,000,000 (which is still lower than the estimated population of 3500 BCE Egypt) and then use the population growth rate of 1.169%, we get a new total population of 1,011,690 for the first year only. So your claim that there was only an increase of 11.69 people annually is incorrect. The growth, with a starting total of 1 million people, means that in the first year that eleven thousand, six hundred and ninety new people in the population group. Next year, there is a growth of 1,169% of 1,011,690, which will mean that 1,023,516.6 people would now be in the group.
1.169% is a huge population growth for the time and place we are talking about; I don’t think that you really understand the problems involved. Say we take Lucas’ 1.169% over a period of 430 years and work with a group beginning at just one million, how many people would be in that group after 430 years?
1000000*1.01169^430 = 148,049,389
Now, I would say that this total figure is insanely high, and I believe that Lucas intentionally used 20th century figures that he knew would be higher than mid second millennium BCE figures to demonstrate how absurd that biblical growth rate is.
Now, Lucas’ growth rate is way too high, there is no way that one million people could grow to over 148 million in 430 years with conditions the way they were 3500-4000 years ago. But, if we use the growth rate suggested by the Bible for the Exodus group and apply that to this one million, then what do we get?
The growth rate suggested by the Bible would be around 24.7% per 1000 people, or 2.47%:
70*1.0247^430 = 2, 521,706
If we apply this rate to the million we get, 36,024,384,455, which is completely and utterly ridiculous, unless you are a fundamentalist Christian, or a KJ inerrantist.
You think that this is too high even for 1500 B.C.?
Yes, it is way too high. Please try thinking about what you are saying. If at that time, population growths of this huge size were possible over a sustained period of time then the world would have been overcrowded thousands of years ago.
Instead of your normal empty claims, why not try supporting your arguments? For example, do you have evidence from any ancient society that supports a population growth of 1.169% per year for 430 years?
Sorry to burst your bubble
You haven’t burst my bubble at all, all you have done is to make yourself look silly and completely ignorant of just about every area of education known to man.
but the only place/time this is too high for is modern day Japan/Europe.
Why?
Why is it that in Japan, the country whose population has the longest life expectancy in the world, or the UK or France, societies far more advanced medically and technologically than 1500 BCE Egypt, should have a smaller population growth?
What evidence do you have that ANY society’s population during the second millennium BCE grew at this rate for this period of time?
Not to mention you are applying 20th century Bedouin population data to Exodus era Egyptian Nile Valley agrarian culture?
Lucas applied them because he knew that the 20th century figures were much higher than the ancient ones, he was demonstrating that if the growth rate required by the Israelites was absurd by 20th century standards, then how much more absurd are they at a time when growth rates were much much lower?
Sorry again,
Don’t be sorry, you are doing a great job of showing your ignorance of the subject, keep going.
but completely different populations that can't be compared; civilizations originated on fertile rivers for a reason (resources to grow).
But, they can be compared! The 20th century growth rates are much higher than the ancient ones, so they can be compared to show that the numbers involved in the Exodus were not possible at that time.
There may well have been more nomadic groups in the ancient near east, but this actually limits population growth. It wasn’t until after urbanisation that population rates grew.
Have you ever studied archaeology at all? I suggest that you read some surveys of settlements during this period to find out just how ludicrous your approach is.
As with "snowball earth," statistics like your Lucas quote are why I no longer respect "scientists."
Maybe you don’t respect them because you do not understand science.
They can't even utilize basic math.
LOL, this from someone with virtually no critical thinking skills at all! Someone who is incapable of working out that the population of Egypt 3500 years ago would have been a lot higher than one thousand.
Have you had a personal religious experience, because you are showing all the classic symptoms of cognitive dissonance?
Papyrus Anastasi VI. This is apparently a satire, which if I'm not mistaken,
Archaeology and near eastern history aren’t really your subjects either are they?
Papyrus Anastasi VI is a copy of an official Egyptian military document. You need to do more studying.
You are thinking about Anastasi I, which is a completely different text. Do try reading articles ‘word-for-word’ it makes things so much easier.
is not a good reference for historical accuracy...
Yet you think that the Bible is a good reference for historical accuracy?
Your page 1041 quote supports the idea that there were millions of people...
No one said that there weren’t millions of people in the era that we are discussing; but we are discussing the population growth rate over a stated period of time. Try to keep up.
If you had troubled yourself to read the page 1041 quote, (word for word) then you would have found out that by the beginning of the Christian era there was an estimated 300 million people in the world, but 8000 years earlier the estimate was between 5 and 10 million people. What you should have done was to work out the population growth rate from these figures to find out what the approximate rate would have been. I’ll do it for you.
10000000*1.000425^8000 = 299,424,649
What is interesting, if you had gone on to read the Livi-Bacci quote, is how his figure of 0.4 per thousand fits in nicely with the figures given in the ‘page 1041’ quote.
Please read the article word for word (this seems to be a problem on this forum)
Not reading an article word for word seems to be the one area in which you do excel.
BTW, any luck in finding out when King Jabin ruled Canaan as a single polity? If not, maybe you should add that to your list of KJV errors.
Brian
This message has been edited by Brian, 01-28-2005 05:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Incognito, posted 01-23-2005 9:56 AM Incognito has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 114 of 118 (181297)
01-28-2005 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Phat
01-27-2005 10:49 AM


Re: Biblical Inerrency: Noah
Can you tell me your perception of 'meeting' god was not all in your mind? People have had such life changing experiances before, and believe me, they all didn't become Christians. Many didn't even become theists, but rather non-theistic buddhists.
Professor Persinger, of Toronto university has managed to reproduce these experianes artifically in people, using a device that stimulate certain sections of the brain, and quiesse others, by the use of magnetic impulses.
Just because people have these experiances doesn't mean that is anything but a personal illusion, and certainly doesn't mean that
the book they study is true. If so, everyone that had them would have
been directed to Chrisitanity, not some to it, some to other religions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Phat, posted 01-27-2005 10:49 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 01-28-2005 9:01 AM ramoss has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 118 (181304)
01-28-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ramoss
01-28-2005 7:44 AM


Re: Biblical Inerrency: Noah
ramoss writes:
Can you tell me your perception of 'meeting' god was not all in your mind?
Do you mean like a dream? All that I know is that the day that I met Him, I became very aware. It is not as if I knew what He looked like. It was that I suddenly was at total peace. I felt incredible love. I felt a sense of a presence greater than anything that I had ever felt. More mind altering than any drug. More in control of the environment around me and yet not a controlling force...a living presence!
People have had such life changing experiances before, and believe me, they all didn't become Christians.
I would be interested to meet some of them. I can assure you that whatever label is put upon them/us, we would all agree on what or Who it was that we met.
Many didn't even become theists, but rather non-theistic buddhists.
Explain the beliefs of a non theistic Buddhist. What is the source of wisdom and reality for this person?
Professor Persinger, of Toronto university has managed to reproduce these experianes artifically in people, using a device that stimulate certain sections of the brain, and quiesse others, by the use of magnetic impulses.
And I would ask Professor Persinger if he believes that magnetic impulses by themselves could cause a profound and lasting change in a life that continued long after the magnets and/or stimulators were removed from the brain. Science has shown us that many "religious epiphanies" are the result of profound changes in brain activity. Hypnosis, drugs, meditative disciplines, and changes resulting from accidents and trauma have been documented.
My experience has endured to this day. Of course, my Belief in God as a living source could be said by some to be but an internal product of my mind. My point, in response, is that my mind has been changed by an external to internal transformation. Can I tell you how wonderful and mighty He is? Of course! You may attempt to convince me that my perception can be interpreted other ways. I will agree. But I will not agree that He is a product of your interpretations or of any other private interpretation.
Just because people have these experiences doesn't mean that (it)is anything but a personal illusion, and certainly doesn't mean that the book they study is true.
The question, among many, is this: Is He a product of our perception and illusion or are we a product of His creation?
If so, everyone that had them would have been directed to Christianity, not some to it, some to other religions.
Not necessarily. If You or I stand in a room and many people meet us, not all of them will be compelled to know us better, although it cannot be denied that they all met the same person. In the case of these many experiences, do we know if ALL of them were the Spirit of God? Some may have met something else. An alien perhaps? A Demon?
And you may ask me how I know that my experience was defined as meeting God vs meeting an alien, a demon, or a mental illness. I can assure you that I know. The question is how do YOU know? Keep talking to me and listening to all points of view. You will conclude my sanity or lack thereof. If I am sane, by your definition, you can only then conclude that I believe because I have faith that what I experienced was real.
Whether or not God is real to you or not is your choice. If, however, you conclude that I am insane, you may remind yourself of the source of wisdom that defines insanity vs sanity.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-28-2005 07:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ramoss, posted 01-28-2005 7:44 AM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by ramoss, posted 01-28-2005 11:39 AM Phat has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 116 of 118 (181327)
01-28-2005 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Incognito
01-26-2005 4:18 AM


Re: I think it says it in Exodus 16:35
Where'd they camp? Not sure - I can't imagine they'd have left much evidence though since they didn't have much reason to cook...
They would have reasons to build campfires, which do leave remains. There would be pottery for food and drink, some form of permanent abode, jewellery, tombs, weapons, tools, clothes, excrement, animal bones etc.
The Bible does tell us where the Exodus group camped, although it gives two contradictory routes for the Exodus. There are very few sites that can be identified with any certainty, but one site that has been confidently identified, is that of Tell el-Qudeirat (Kadesh Barnea), which played a major role in the biblical account of the desert wanderings (Numbers 13:26, 20:1, 4).
The Bible claims that the Israelites camped here for 38 of the 40 years that they were in the wilderness:
From The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Ed. George Arthur Buttrick, Abingdon Press, New York, 1962.
Entry 'Kadesh-Barnea'
After Moses and the Israelites left Mount Sinai they journeyed north westwards across the 'great and terrible wilderness' (eltih) toward the hill country of the Amelekites and settled in Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 1:19-20)
The corresponding passage in Num. 13:26 speaks of the location as the wilderness of Paran, but it is evident that Kadesh is meant. It was from here that a company was sent out to spy out the land of Canaan. When their favourable report led to the divine decree that the entire generation would perish in the wilderness and only their children inherit the land promised by God, it was from Kadesh that the Israelites, rejecting the counsel of Moses, made a hasty attempt to force their way into the hill country of the Maorites and were beaten back with great slaughter. After this event, they remained in Kadesh 'for many days'.
It is not certain how long this sojourn in Kadesh lasted. The whole series of chapters from Numbers 13 to 15 has no mention of any removal, and chapter 20 finds them still in Kadesh, so that it might be inferred from them that almost the entire period of the wilderness sojourn was spent there.
And:
From, Dictionary of the Bible John L Makenzie, Chapman, London, 1968.
Entry Kadesh.
In Dt. 1:2 the Israelites reach Kadesh after 11 days travel from Horeb, in Dt. 1:46 they remained there a long time, more explicitly 38 years (Dt. 2:14) setting out from Kadesh to the stream Zered
Every excavation at this site has uncovered nothing that predates the 10th-9th centuries BCE (M. Dothan ‘Kadesh-Barnea’ in The Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations of the Holy Land vol III pp 697-8). Cohen excavated el-Qudeirat to virgin soil and discovered a series of three Israelite forts, but none of these predated the 10th century BCE.
Also, remember that the Bible claims that all of the Israelites that left Egypt were to die before entering Canaan (even Moses), so we would expect a huge number of skeletal remains to be at Kadesh-Barnea, given that it was only two years after leaving Egypt that the Israelites camped there.
You can add this to your growing list of errors.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Incognito, posted 01-26-2005 4:18 AM Incognito has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 117 of 118 (181356)
01-28-2005 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phat
01-28-2005 9:01 AM


Re: Biblical Inerrency: Noah
This is getting too involved for this particular thread..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 01-28-2005 9:01 AM Phat has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 118 of 118 (181916)
01-30-2005 7:11 PM


And then of course there`s the classic 'Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible'-Haley. See how many 'alleged 'errors, are put down to 'scribal error'.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024