Why did the world reject the Messiah when He Did come?

[TransmutingSoul]

The legitimacy of Daniel is extremely important here, because Christians and Baha'is use the prophecies in Daniel.

That's somewhat problematic if there was no Daniel and the book was written in 167BC.

Does not change what is recorded in those Books.

Regards Tony

 

[sooda]

Not a chance. That's the spin from know-nothing liberals who try to deny the prophecies of Daniel and the supernatural.

Alexander the Great and Daniel

JOSEPHUS [Antiquities, 11.8.5] mentions that Alexander the Great had designed to punish the Jews for their fidelity to Darius, but that Jaddua (332 B.C.), the high priest, met him at the head of a procession and averted his wrath by showing him Daniel's prophecy that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. Certain it is, Alexander favored the Jews, and JOSEPHUS' statement gives an explanation of the fact; at least it shows that the Jews in JOSEPHUS' days believed that Daniel was extant in Alexander's days, long before the Maccabees.



The Lord Jesus Christ spoke of Daniel "the prophet" (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14).

The Talmud refers to Daniel as a Prophet

"Hatach. Hatach is another name for the prophet Daniel. He was called Hatach (related to the Hebrew word for "cut") because he was "cut down," demoted from his position of greatness, which he held at the courts of the previous kings" (Megillah 15a).

The Prophet Daniel found in the Dead Sea Scrolls:

It is interesting to note that every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Daniel 12. However, this does not mean that the Book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174) - (Dead Sea Scrolls), which explicitly tells us that it is written in the Book of Daniel the Prophet.



Nope. The Book of Daniel would not be out of place in the prophetic section, Joshua, Judges and Kings are included in the Prophets, and the translators of the Septuagint version of the Jewish Scriptures placed Daniel there also. Joseph D. Wilson, Did Daniel Write Daniel, page 84.

The present position of the Book (of Daniel) in the Hebrew Canon is not its original position. We have it on the authority of the Jewish historian Josephus that that at the close of the first century A.D. the Canon of the Old Testament books was differently arranged from that at present accepted among the Jews; and it is also evident from the writings of the Early Fathers that a change must have been made in the arrangement of the Jewish Canon between the middle of the third and the end of the fourth century A.D. - Charles Boutflower, In and Around the Book of Daniel, pages 276-277.

Josephus in Contra Apionem 1:8 writes, We have but twenty-two (books) containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reigh=n of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and the practical precepts to men.

Daniel was included in those 13 books.

Professor R.D. Wilson states: "All the direct evidence, then, that precedes the year 200 A.D., supports the view that Daniel was in the earliest times among the Prophets.Thus Origen, at A.D. 250, and Jerome, at A.D. 400, both of whom were taught by Jewish Rabbis and claim to have gathered their information from Jewish sources, put Daniel among the Prophets and separate the strictly prophetical books from those which are more properly called historical." - R. D. Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel, page 49.

"The Sanhedrin of the second century B.C. was composed of men of the type of John Hyrcanus; men famed for their piety and learning; men who were heirs of all the proud traditions of the Jewish faith, and themselves the sons of successors of the heroes of the noble Maccabean revolt. And yet we are asked to believe (by the critics of Daniel) that these men, with their extremely strict views of inspiration and their intense reverence for their sacred writings.used their authority to smuggle into the Jewish Canon a book which, ex hypothesi, was a forgery, a literary fraud, and a religious novel of recent date." R. Anderson, Daniel in the Critics Den, pages 104-105

The sages wrote several books of "Wisdom Literature"

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Revelation 9:3 And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth. 4 They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. 5 They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months.
Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

So 5 months is 150 days so that is 150 years that this torment went on? Then Satan is bound for 1000 years which is 360,000 days which is 360,000 years? Is that the calculation you get?

I could see the 3 months as 150 years. I would also see that it may represent the number 6. As I have not studied these passages in the full context, I can not offer much more than that. Others may have done a more in depth study.

The thousand years I would see more like it represents a dispensation of a Messenger.

Regards Tony

 

[sooda]

I could see the 3 months as 150 years. I would also see that it may represent the number 6. As I have not studied these passages in the full context, I can not offer much more than that. Others may have done a more in depth study.

The thousand years I would see more like it represents a dispensation of a Messenger.

Regards Tony

The locusts of Revelation 9 are Roman soldiers and the General Titus is the human reflection of Apollyon.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

William Miller expected Jesus to return, but it was The Bab. Do the Bible prophecies say that the Messiah will come on that day or the Messiah's forerunner? I know The Bab is a great prophet to the Baha'is, but where is his religion? Who studies his book? Was he the One, the Return of Christ or was Baha'u'llah? So why isn't there more focus on the prophecies that point to when Baha'u'llah declared?

From my understanding the Message of the Bab and Baha'u'llah are interwoven, they both fulfill the Biblical Prophecy. The Bab was Elijah of this age and Shoghi Effendi has explained the significance;

"He Who communicated the original impulse to so incalculable a Movement was none other than the promised Qá’im (He who ariseth), the Sáhibu’z-Zamán (the Lord of the Age), Who assumed the exclusive right of annulling the whole Qur’ánic Dispensation, Who styled Himself “the Primal Point from which have been generated all created things … the Countenance of God Whose splendor can never be obscured, the Light of God Whose radiance can never fade.”

Now if many had accepted the Bab, then the Babs Message would have to prepare d them for Baha'u'llah and we would not now be asking these questions.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Who, other than Shia Moslems found The Bab?

Unfortunately for humanity, not many.

Regards Tony

 

[Spartan]

Who is Ezekiel's Daniel? | Bible.org

There are compelling arguments why your date of 167 BC for the writing of Daniel is way off base.

"Vasholz concludes that "the evidence now available from Qumran indicates a pre-second century date for the Aramaic of Daniel." One piece of evidence he points to is that of the spelling of the name of Darius. In Biblical Aramaic it is Dryw which agrees with the Meissner contract from 515 B.C. and the earliest Aramaic papyri (494 B.C.; whereas, in later times the name was spelt with a He (Dryhw). [page 320] On this Kitchen notes that if Daniel and Ezra were written in the late sixth to mid-fifth centuries then their preservation of the earlier form is understandable; but, if it was written "in the third century BC of later, then their failure use the form with the h -- in constant use for a century by then (c. 420-330 BC) -- is quite incomprehensible." [Kitchen (1965): 59-60

"In fact, J. A. Montgomery points out that the "the very language of the story [of Daniel (4:30)] is reminiscent of the Akkadian" found on the Grotefend Cylinder. ["The Book of Daniel," ICC. Vol. 23 (1927): 243] The point here is that in the Akkadian "the verb normally falls at or near the end of the sentence" whereas in the normal Aramaic of Palestine it would not. [Kitchen (1965): 76] This point "proves that the Aramaic of Daniel (and Ezra) belongs to the early tradition of Imperial Aramaic (seventh-sixth to fourth centuries BC) as opposed to later and local Palestinian derivatives of Imperial Aramaic ..." [Kitchen (1965): 76; Soggin, 409]

"If Daniel was written as late as is claimed (by you) then how did he know of details about Babylon that had been lost within a half-century of its fall to Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Xerxes having destroyed its palaces, walls, and temples in 480 B.C.)? The typical Daniel, critic ignores this point."

"If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text?[contra Lenormant who claims the book is "interspersed .. in various places with Greek words". cited by Montgomery, 74] In fact, Yamauchi and Boutflower are surprised "that there are not more Greek words" in this document if it was indeed written in the Maccabean age--note the deep influence of Greek culture and customs on the Books of Maccabees; and yet we see none of this in Daniel!"

"Scholar Klaus Koch also points out that the vocalization of the Aramaic of Daniel appears to be of Eastern type and the general context and royal figures point to the east. [See Koch's book, page 47] Also the famous Aramaic scholar E. Y. Kutscher has shown that the Aramaic of Daniel points to an Eastern origin. [Kutscher, 400; cited by Hasel, (1981): 219 and (1986): 132] A Western origin would be required if the Maccabean thesis were correct. This factor alone strongly suggests that a Maccabean source (date of 167 BC) for the book is in error."

More refutations of your 167 BC date in the link below.

The Date of the Book of Daniel

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for bringing those things up. My only problem was that 1260 days are mentioned I think twice. Once for the Two Witnesses and again for the woman after she has given birth to a son. But then 3 1/2 days, 42 months (twice) and a time, times and half a time are all converted to equal the 1260 years. Why so many references to the 1260 year "prophecy" that in each case starts with the Hegira and ends with the declaration of The Bab? And one of the 42 month references was for a beast? Then after that beast comes the 666 beast? And the Baha'is make all of them starting in 622 and ending in 1844? All of these prophecies started and stopped at the same time?

If the Messiah has come and all the prophecies have been fulfilled, I think it should be a little more obvious. Thanks again for your input and the "advent" of Islam being 610 ad is an interesting point. Why not that date? Was it reverse engineered from 1844 to see what significant event happened 1260 years before that? Lunar years solar years and years that got the Baha'is to something they could use and 622 was it? But then again, I guess the Islamic calendar starts at that date and at 1260 it ends up being 1844. But the same 1260 prophecy 6 times in Revelation? That's hard to believe.

Ser brother, I read the book Abdul baha wrote. He clearly says "the advent of islam". Yes, he does mention the year of hijri, but if he is to take the year of hijri and the islamic calendar, then the islamic calendar is a lunar calendar. So a year has 354 days a year, so why not take that into calculation? Why not be consistent?

Also, the advent of Isllam, the beginning of ot with Muhammed rationally happened in 610.

Too many cherry pickings and inconsistencies. There is no rational reconciliation. Impossible.

 

[sooda]

Ser brother, I read the book Abdul baha wrote. He clearly says "the advent of islam". Yes, he does mention the year of hijri, but if he is to take the year of hijri and the islamic calendar, then the islamic calendar is a lunar calendar. So a year has 354 days a year, so why not take that into calculation? Why not be consistent?

Also, the advent of Isllam, the beginning of ot with Muhammed rationally happened in 610.

Too many cherry pickings and inconsistencies. There is no rational reconciliation. Impossible.

42 months is just 42 months.. Its not a trick Vespasian and Titus were the gentiles trodding Jerusalem for 42 months up until the grape harvest (August 70 AD) when the Temple was destroyed.

 

[sooda]

There are compelling arguments why your date of 167 BC for the writing of Daniel is way off base.

"Vasholz concludes that "the evidence now available from Qumran indicates a pre-second century date for the Aramaic of Daniel." One piece of evidence he points to is that of the spelling of the name of Darius. In Biblical Aramaic it is Dryw which agrees with the Meissner contract from 515 B.C. and the earliest Aramaic papyri (494 B.C.; whereas, in later times the name was spelt with a He (Dryhw). [page 320] On this Kitchen notes that if Daniel and Ezra were written in the late sixth to mid-fifth centuries then their preservation of the earlier form is understandable; but, if it was written "in the third century BC of later, then their failure use the form with the h -- in constant use for a century by then (c. 420-330 BC) -- is quite incomprehensible." [Kitchen (1965): 59-60

"In fact, J. A. Montgomery points out that the "the very language of the story [of Daniel (4:30)] is reminiscent of the Akkadian" found on the Grotefend Cylinder. ["The Book of Daniel," ICC. Vol. 23 (1927): 243] The point here is that in the Akkadian "the verb normally falls at or near the end of the sentence" whereas in the normal Aramaic of Palestine it would not. [Kitchen (1965): 76] This point "proves that the Aramaic of Daniel (and Ezra) belongs to the early tradition of Imperial Aramaic (seventh-sixth to fourth centuries BC) as opposed to later and local Palestinian derivatives of Imperial Aramaic ..." [Kitchen (1965): 76; Soggin, 409]

"If Daniel was written as late as is claimed (by you) then how did he know of details about Babylon that had been lost within a half-century of its fall to Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Xerxes having destroyed its palaces, walls, and temples in 480 B.C.)? The typical Daniel, critic ignores this point."

"If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text?[contra Lenormant who claims the book is "interspersed .. in various places with Greek words". cited by Montgomery, 74] In fact, Yamauchi and Boutflower are surprised "that there are not more Greek words" in this document if it was indeed written in the Maccabean age--note the deep influence of Greek culture and customs on the Books of Maccabees; and yet we see none of this in Daniel!"

"Scholar Klaus Koch also points out that the vocalization of the Aramaic of Daniel appears to be of Eastern type and the general context and royal figures point to the east. [See Koch's book, page 47] Also the famous Aramaic scholar E. Y. Kutscher has shown that the Aramaic of Daniel points to an Eastern origin. [Kutscher, 400; cited by Hasel, (1981): 219 and (1986): 132] A Western origin would be required if the Maccabean thesis were correct. This factor alone strongly suggests that a Maccabean source (date of 167 BC) for the book is in error."

More refutations of your 167 BC date in the link below.

The Date of the Book of Daniel

Good grief, Why would the Jewish sages of Judah write Daniel in Greek when they were on the warpath about Hellenized Jews in Israel ?

 

[firedragon]

42 months is just 42 months.. Its not a trick Vespasian and Titus were the gentiles trodding Jerusalem for 42 months up until the grape harvest (August 70 AD) when the Temple was destroyed.

Who said it's a trick?

 

[CG Didymus]

Does not change what is recorded in those Books.

Regards Tony

Ok, who recorded what was written in Daniel? Do you believe everything that is written in Daniel like his friends being thrown into a fiery furnace and not being harmed? You probably don't. Yet, the prophecies you do? Anyway, it's good that Baha'is believe in independently investigating the truth and not just taking things for granted. Here's why some believe Daniel was written at a later date:

The original purpose of the Book of Daniel was to comfort and encourage persecuted Jews during the Maccabean revolt. It all began in December of 167 BC, when the Seleucid emperor Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem with an idol bearing his likeness. He went on to force his Jewish subjects to abandon the Sabbath, circumcision, and food laws, torturing and killing all who opposed him. At this outrage, the Jews revolted under Judas Maccabeus, driving the Seleucid armies out of Palestine and recapturing the Temple. In December of 164 BC, they rededicated the Temple to Jewish worship on the first Hanukkah.

During the revolt, pious Jews began to circulate an anthology of stories allegedly written four hundred years earlier by a Jewish hero named Daniel. These stories relate how Daniel and his friends, while serving as officials in the courts of pagan kings, risked their lives to avoid breaking Jewish food laws or worshipping false gods. When the mightiest kings on Earth tried to force them to compromise their religious principles, they passively waited on God's miraculous intervention to save them. The success of Daniel's prophecies of events up to and including the atrocities of Antiochus supposedly demonstrated that God would miraculously intervene on schedule to rescue the Jews from Antiochus as well.

The prophet Daniel supposedly predicted that four great empires were to rise and fall in succession between his day and the end of the world: Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece. Alexander the Great's Greek Empire was to break up into four smaller empires, the most important being the Seleucid Empire in Syria to the north, and the Ptolemaic Empire in Egypt to the south. After seven Greek kings ruled in succession, the eighth was to snatch the throne from three candidates who had more right to it than he did. This king, Antiochus Epiphanes, provoked the Maccabean War. The Book of Daniel predicted that God would miraculously destroy Antiochus Epiphanes, resurrect the righteous dead, and set up an everlasting, worldwide Israelite Empire three and a half years after the desecration of the Temple; in other words, the Messianic Empire should have begun in June of 163 BC. Since these predictions largely came true until the middle of the war and failed thereafter, we know that the author lived in Seleucid times, not Babylonian times.​

 

[CG Didymus]

I could see the 3 months as 150 years. I would also see that it may represent the number 6. As I have not studied these passages in the full context, I can not offer much more than that. Others may have done a more in depth study.

The thousand years I would see more like it represents a dispensation of a Messenger.

Regards Tony

Here's some more of Revelation. Since Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all prophecy, what are these prophecies talking about? When and how were they fulfilled?

The fifth angel sounded his trumpet, and I saw a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth. The star was given the key to the shaft of the Abyss.
When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.
And out of the smoke locusts came down on the earth and were given power like that of scorpions of the earth.
They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads.
They were not allowed to kill them but only to torture them for five months. And the agony they suffered was like that of the sting of a scorpion when it strikes.
During those days people will seek death but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.
The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces.
Their hair was like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth.
They had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the thundering of many horses and chariots rushing into battle.
They had tails with stingers, like scorpions, and in their tails they had power to torment people for five months.
They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).​

 

[CG Didymus]

Now if many had accepted the Bab, then the Babs Message would have to prepare d them for Baha'u'llah and we would not now be asking these questions.

How many had the opportunity to even know about him? I thought that "every eye will see him" when Christ returns? Every eye did not see him. And, like you said, with The Bab it was a few Shia Moslems that were looking for him. 50 years ago when I first heard about the Baha'i Faith, the Baha'is were talking about still being in "obscurity". In the 70's, my Baha'is friends went out to do mass teaching to bring on the time when great numbers of people would become Baha'is. How well did that work? Never mind, I'll tell you. Many people signed declaration cards after listening to the Baha'is message. But most of the Baha'i at the meeting were only there for that meeting. They lived somewhere else. The locals couldn't or didn't "deepen" the new believers, so many, or most, fell away.

In the late '80's the Baha'i Peace Message came out. There was a Peace Conference held in San Francisco that year... A tremendous event. What happened? This time I'm asking you. I didn't stay involved with the Baha'is for more than 20 years. So what happened? Even now, so many people still don't know, or care, about the Baha'i Faith. And this was supposed to be the great return of Christ? The end of the world? Judgement day? Every eye still hasn't seen the return of Christ. That is why we are here. You say he has returned. People need some tangible proof. So far every one has beliefs that are just as credible, or incredible, as everyone else's.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are compelling arguments why your date of 167 BC for the writing of Daniel is way off base.

"Vasholz concludes that "the evidence now available from Qumran indicates a pre-second century date for the Aramaic of Daniel." One piece of evidence he points to is that of the spelling of the name of Darius. In Biblical Aramaic it is Dryw which agrees with the Meissner contract from 515 B.C. and the earliest Aramaic papyri (494 B.C.; whereas, in later times the name was spelt with a He (Dryhw). [page 320] On this Kitchen notes that if Daniel and Ezra were written in the late sixth to mid-fifth centuries then their preservation of the earlier form is understandable; but, if it was written "in the third century BC of later, then their failure use the form with the h -- in constant use for a century by then (c. 420-330 BC) -- is quite incomprehensible." [Kitchen (1965): 59-60

"In fact, J. A. Montgomery points out that the "the very language of the story [of Daniel (4:30)] is reminiscent of the Akkadian" found on the Grotefend Cylinder. ["The Book of Daniel," ICC. Vol. 23 (1927): 243] The point here is that in the Akkadian "the verb normally falls at or near the end of the sentence" whereas in the normal Aramaic of Palestine it would not. [Kitchen (1965): 76] This point "proves that the Aramaic of Daniel (and Ezra) belongs to the early tradition of Imperial Aramaic (seventh-sixth to fourth centuries BC) as opposed to later and local Palestinian derivatives of Imperial Aramaic ..." [Kitchen (1965): 76; Soggin, 409]

"If Daniel was written as late as is claimed (by you) then how did he know of details about Babylon that had been lost within a half-century of its fall to Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Xerxes having destroyed its palaces, walls, and temples in 480 B.C.)? The typical Daniel, critic ignores this point."

"If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text?[contra Lenormant who claims the book is "interspersed .. in various places with Greek words". cited by Montgomery, 74] In fact, Yamauchi and Boutflower are surprised "that there are not more Greek words" in this document if it was indeed written in the Maccabean age--note the deep influence of Greek culture and customs on the Books of Maccabees; and yet we see none of this in Daniel!"

"Scholar Klaus Koch also points out that the vocalization of the Aramaic of Daniel appears to be of Eastern type and the general context and royal figures point to the east. [See Koch's book, page 47] Also the famous Aramaic scholar E. Y. Kutscher has shown that the Aramaic of Daniel points to an Eastern origin. [Kutscher, 400; cited by Hasel, (1981): 219 and (1986): 132] A Western origin would be required if the Maccabean thesis were correct. This factor alone strongly suggests that a Maccabean source (date of 167 BC) for the book is in error."

More refutations of your 167 BC date in the link below.

The Date of the Book of Daniel

But, is the Baha'i use of Daniel's prophecy off base or is it correct? Do the numbers come up to 1844? If they do, it is not a great disappointment... it is a great "oops" are the Baha'is right? Did we really miss the return?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

? Do you believe everything that is written in Daniel like his friends being thrown into a fiery furnace and not being harmed? You probably don't. Yet, the prophecies you do? Anyway, it's good that Baha'is believe in independently investigating the truth and not just taking things for granted.

I see the scriptures have been preserved for us to contemplate and learn from.

Being thrown into a firery furnace and not being burned, is true explaining true Faith CG.

It is teaching no matter what the reaction is of a disbelieving multitude. No matter what the multitude do, the giver is not burned.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

. People need some tangible proof. So far every one has beliefs that are just as credible, or incredible, as everyone else's.

That is up to all people CG. I see truckloads of tangable proofs. I hope you get a chance to see new movie 'Light of the World'.

I have explained my view that Prophecy is not a chronological unfolding of events. In a spiritual sense, every eye has seen, even if our material senses have not perceived what we have seen. The world is vastly different from the mid 1800's, yet we may not see why. In the material world, I see the prophecy will unfold in time.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But, is the Baha'i use of Daniel's prophecy off base or is it correct? Do the numbers come up to 1844? If they do, it is not a great disappointment... it is a great "oops" are the Baha'is right? Did we really miss the return?

A big oops is what I see is what happened.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

In the late '80's the Baha'i Peace Message came out. There was a Peace Conference held in San Francisco that year... A tremendous event. What happened? This time I'm asking you. I didn't stay involved with the Baha'is for more than 20 years. So what happened? Even now, so many people still don't know, or care, about the Baha'i Faith. And this was supposed to be the great return of Christ? The end of the world? Judgement day? Every eye still hasn't seen the return of Christ. That is why we are here. You say he has returned. People need some tangible proof. So far every one has beliefs that are just as credible, or incredible, as everyone else's.

It's been spread enough for many to have heard about it now. Still the numbers remain stagnant or in decline. Why is that?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The question is then, why did they find the event when others did not?

Regards Tony

Why does anyone start a new religion?