Reflectorites
On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:47:36 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>PR> You've for some reason not mentioned the other decrees or the 360 day
>year yet (in your original post).
>SJ>I still don't understand Paul's point. The above is a quote from Newman,
>not my own words.
>PR>I notice you quote voluminously. This is presumably so when it is shown
>to be codswallop, you can abandon it.
No. It is to support my claims with *evidence*.
And if Paul is to show my claims to be "codswallop" he will need to
support *his* claims with evidence. Paul just asserting something does
not make it so.
PR>Okay. Here's my $1,000,000 question.
There are *three* questions below. Are they each worth "$1,000,000"
or only $333,333.33? :-)
PR>Are both apologists honest?
I presume so. But then I lack Paul's gift (which he shares with other
Darwinists BTW) of infallibly detecting dishonesty in those who he
disagrees with!
PR>Are the 360 day year and the 6 out of 7
>counting
There is no "6 out of 7 counting". If Paul is referring to the Jewish
sabbath year cycles and its method of inclusive counting he should state
it correctly.
PR>both correct?
Of course not. I have stated all along that these are *alternatives*. That
is either one could be right, or none right, but I assume that both
cannot be right.
PR>If not, which is wrong
I have not yet made up my mind which alternative is more likely to be
correct. I will need to study them in greater depth and consider the
arguments on both sides. I have started an FAQ on this which I will
post in due course.
PR>and why?
I am leaning more and more to Newman's sabbath year cycles. The
reason is the connection between:
1. the original commandment for the Israelites to keep the sabbath year
cycles:
Ex 23:10-11 "For six years you are to sow your fields and harvest
the crops, but during the seventh year let the land lie unplowed and
unused. Then the poor among your people may get food from it,
and the wild animals may eat what they leave. Do the same with
your vineyard and your olive grove."
Lev 25:3-7 "For six years sow your fields, and for six years prune
your vineyards and gather their crops. But in the seventh year the
land is to have a sabbath of rest, a sabbath to the LORD. Do not
sow your fields or prune your vineyards. Do not reap what grows
of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to
have a year of rest. Whatever the land yields during the sabbath
year will be food for you--for yourself, your manservant and
maidservant, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live
among you, as well as for your livestock and the wild animals in
your land. Whatever the land produces may be eaten."
2. the warning of punishment by exile if they didn't:
Lev 26:14-15, 32-35 "But if you will not listen to me and carry out
all these commands, and if you reject my decrees and abhor my
laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my
covenant ... I will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live
there will be appalled. I will scatter you among the nations and will
draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste,
and your cities will lie in ruins. Then the land will enjoy its sabbath
years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of
your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the
time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have
during the sabbaths you lived in it."
3. the reflection of Jeremiah on this:
Jer 25:8-12 "Therefore the LORD Almighty says this: "Because
you have not listened to my words, I will summon all the peoples of
the north and my servant Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon,"
declares the LORD, "and I will bring them against this land and its
inhabitants and against all the surrounding nations. I will completely
destroy them and make them an object of horror and scorn, and an
everlasting ruin. I will banish from them the sounds of joy and
gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, the sound of
millstones and the light of the lamp. This whole country will
become a desolate wasteland, and these nations will serve the king
of Babylon seventy years. "But when the seventy years are fulfilled,
I will punish the king of Babylon and his nation, the land of the
Babylonians, for their guilt," declares the LORD, "and will make it
desolate forever."
and
4. Daniel's reflection on Jeremiah's prophecy:
Dan 9:1-2,8,11 "In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes (a Mede
by descent), who was made ruler over the Babylonian kingdom-in
the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures,
according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet,
that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. ... O
LORD ... All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away,
refusing to obey you. "Therefore the curses and sworn judgments
written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured
out on us, because we have sinned against you. "
This showed that sabbath year cycles was in his Daniel's mind when the
angel Gabriel gave him the message of the "Seventy 'sevens'":
Dan 9:21-27 while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen
in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the
evening sacrifice. He instructed me and said to me, "Daniel, I have
now come to give you insight and understanding. As soon as you
began to pray, an answer was given, which I have come to tell you,
for you are highly esteemed. Therefore, consider the message and
understand the vision: "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your
people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to
sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness,
to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. "Know
and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and
rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there
will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with
streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two
'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the
sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until
the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a
covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he
will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the
temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until
the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
>SJ>Once again I explained why I didn't mention "the other decrees or the 360
>day year" in my "original post".
>PR>The fact that you can make an excuse doesn't enhance your credibility.
The fact that Paul does not accept this reasonable *explanation* of
mine certainly "doesn't enhance" *his* "credibility" with me!
To demand that I must lay out my entire argument in my very first post
on a topic, is simply unreasonable, even apart from the fact that there
were very good reasons why I didn't.
It tells me that Paul will clutch at any straw to protect his anti-
supernaturalist position from falsification. Indeed, I take it as an
indication of the *weakness* of Paul's argument that he has to resort to
such tactics.
>>SJ>One cannot help but note with interest that on this analysis the
>>"Anointed One" is "cut off" precisely when Jesus is crucified!
>PR>Odd. In Part 2 you claim there is no claim of exactness.
It is not "odd" at all:
First, these are *Newman's* words in a quote;
Second, and as I have already explained, by "precisely" Newman means
in the context within the seven year period 28-35AD.
Third, that there is "there is no claim of exactness" does not preclude it
being exact.
>>PR>Well, I thought Jesus Ministry lasted four years, and most crucifixion
>>dates are 32-33AD (though every date between 20 and 60 seems to
>>have been pushed at some time).
>>SJ>I have always thought of it as being ~ 3 years. But really one year
>>doesn't matter.
>>PR>It does if you are claiming "precisely".
SJ>Within a 7-year time frame *is* "precisely"!
>PR>It's hardly surprising multiple calculations can hit that large a target.
Not really. Even with "multiple calculations" (and there are only 16 [or
17] possibilities) it is remarkable that two hit a "target" that is only 7
years wide.
And it is even more remarkable when the objectively best terminus ad
quo (445BC) and two out of the three objectively best methods of
calculation (360 day years and sabbath year cycles) hit the same 7 year
wide "target".
The remarkability increases even when it is realised that the Jews were
expecting the Messiah at about this time, based almost certainly on
Daniel's prophecy.
Finally, the remarkability increased again, when the fact that the
""target"" was the public ministry of Jesus, the only claimed Messiah
who founded a world religion!
>SJ>But Jesus is the only person claiming to be the Messiah who founded
>>a world religion.
>PR>Pot luck. Unless you include LRH I suppose ;-)
>SJ>I assume that "LRH" is L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. I note
>Paul's :-) and assume he is conceding the point that "Jesus is the only
>person claiming to be the Messiah who founded a world religion".
>PR>Not really. It is debatable whether current Christianity is what Jesus had
>in mind. I hope not.
See previous.
>SJ>who has inaugurated a world
>>religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when
>>Daniel predicted!
>>PR>Odd definition of precise.
>>SJ>This is quibbling. There is one reasonable interpretation that works out
>>to the *day*.
>PR>Well, you claim not exact earlier.
No. I said that there was no claim of exactness, but that doesn't
preclude it being exact. Anderson's interpretation that works out to a
particular day in 33AD is still within the 7 years window of 28-35AD.
It could be right, but it wouldn't matter if it wasn't. I have since
discovered it has some problems and so it probably is not right, or
at least cannot be proved to be right.
>>PR>Given that we don't know when Jesus was crucified, this is absurd. The
>>interpretation is, to be kind, tortuous.
>SJ>It is not "absurd"
>PR>You say it works out to the day despite not knowing which year it is? This
>is absurd.
Paul is being pedantic. I made it clear that it was an "interpretation".
The "day" itself is part of that interpretation.
Paul in his counter-argument relies on exaggerations like "absurd" to
bolster his weak case. Anderson's interpretation might be *wrong* but
it is not "absurd".
>SJ>or "tortuous". It is one possible interpretation. As long as
>Jesus' crucifixion fell within the seven-year period of the 69th seven that
>would be OK. In the case of the 360-day year interpretation that would be
>within 30-37AD +/- 1 because of the mid-year 445-444BC terminus a
>quo. In the case of the Sabbath year cycle it would be 28-35AD.
>PR>And there are umpteen other interpretations that apologists don't
>push. Why do you think this is ?
Again Paul exaggerates: There are not "umpteen other interpretations".
There are only *four* claimed combinations of: 1) terminus a quo:
"1. The decree of Cyrus, 539 B.C. (Ezra 1:14). 2. The decree of
Darius, 519 B.C. (Ezra 5:3-7). 3. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra,
457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-16). 4. The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah,
444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:1-8)." (McDowell J., "Evidence That
Demands a Verdict," 1988, Vol. I, p.172)
and another *four* claimed calculation of the "sevens": 1. literal
weeks, 2. literal 365 day years; 3. 360-day `prophetic' years; and 4.
sabbath day cycles. In addition, there is a symbolic interpretation which
usually starts at the decree of Cyrus and terminates at the public
ministry of Jesus.
Leaving aside the symbolic interpretation which by definition
terminates at the time of Jesus, that leaves a total of *sixteen* (not
"umpteeen") combinations. as previously posted:
literal 365-day 360-day sabbath
Start weeks years years year
cycles
--------------------- ----- ------ ------- -----------
1. Ezr 1:14 539BC 530BC 56BC 63BC 64-57BC
2. Ezr 5:3-7 519BC 510BC 36BC 43BC 43-36BC
3. Ezr 7:11-16 457BC 448BC 27AD* 20AD* 21-28AD*
4. Neh 2:1-8 445BC 436BC 39AD 32AD** 28-35AD**
Many of these can be eliminated. For example, AFAIK no one claims
"the decree of Darius, 519 B.C." and AFAIK only *one* scholar has
ever maintained the "sevens" are literal weeks.
That leaves only 3 x 3 = 9 possible combinations. And of those nine,
*five* yield a result which falls in Jesus' lifetime and two of five those
fall within His public ministry (~30-33AD). One of those which fall just
before Jesus public ministry (27AD), could fall on the year Jesus was
baptised by John the Baptist, and thus be a real possibility (see below).
If Paul wants to pick his preferred combination, let him do so, and
support it with *objective* reasons and not just because they yield a
result that does not fall within the lifetime of Jesus.
>SJ>All the years I have ever seen are within that period, clustering
>around 30-33AD (see below).
>PR>You don't really believe Steve, that someone sat down , took the facts,
>>worked it out and said "Wow ! It comes out to 33 AD".
>SJ>I have already said "that I personally don't claim it that it *has* to be to
>>the exact day. Anytime in the 69th `week' 7-year period would do."
>PR>But you want to say "there is a reasonable interpretation that works out
>to the exact day" just because it sounds impressive, then.
No. I was answering Paul's comment about interpretations not being
"precise".
PR>Incidentally, have you looked at the thread title recently ?
Yes: "Re: Daniel's 70 `weeks' #3 (was How to prove
supernaturalism?)"
PR>I ask because you originally said
>
>"some ingenious ways of getting around it (apart from outright
>`head-in-the-sand' denial)."
Yes. The latter being Paul's way 'of getting around it"!
PR>I'm interested that you think looking at what the text of the Bible
said
>fits this ;
No. I do believe that *all the evidence*: 1) "what the text of the Bible
said"; 2) the fact that the 1st century Jews expected the Messiah then
based on "what the text of the Bible said"; and 3) the objectively best
combinations of terminus a quo and calculation of the sevens come out
as either in or just before Jesus public ministry; and 4) Jesus is the only
claimed Messiah who found what became a world religion; fits this.
PR>or that not accepting 360 day years or conveniently missing
>1 in 7 years fits this.
Interpreting the "sevens" as either "360 day years" or sabbath years
cycles (not "missing 1 in 7 years") does fit this.
PR>Given that you are now claiming this is "reasonable"
>"possible" etc. don't you think the existence of several other combinations
>makes your original claim somewhat er... wrong ?
No. If it is "reasonable" and "possible" that makes my original claim
*right*. It is those like Paul who deny it who are being un-
"reasonable"!
PR>The other minor detail you've forgotten is YOU wrote
>
SJ>"In Daniel 9:25-27 there is a prediction that works out to the very
>year 27 AD when Jesus began his public ministry:"
I had almost "forgotten" this. This was my initial post that started this
thread and on re-reading it supports my explanation that I posted it in a
hurry and I did not then realise the significance of Newman's sabbath
year cycle theory. The quote from Newman that I attached did not even
say "27AD" but "28-35AD":
"Using these cycles as units of measurement, the sixty-ninth such
cycle (7 + 62), measured from the starting point of 445 B.C., spans
the years A.D. 28-35." (Newman R.C, "Fulfilled Prophecy as Miracle,"
in Geivett R.D. & Habermas G.R., eds., "In Defense of Miracles,"
1997, pp.223-224)
I would also like to clear up when "Jesus began his *public* ministry". I
read the other day where Luke actually says that Jesus began his ministry
immediately after His baptism by John the Baptist:
Lk 3:21,23 "When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was
baptized too. ... Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when
he began his ministry."
Since Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great who died in 4BC,
and when "Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Lk 2:2) which was 6-
4BC, and Herod "gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its
vicinity who were two years old and under" (Mt 2:16), it is likely that
Jesus was born in 6BC. This would then make Jesus 34 in 28AD.
Also, Newman says in his paper that his 28-35AD cycle could be out "by a
year or two on either end":
"Even if we follow Zuckermann's scheme for the location of the
sabbatical cycle instead of Wacholder's, the 69th cycle only shifts by
one year, to AD 27-34, which still fits equally well. Likewise an
error by a year or two on either end, for Artaxerxes 20th year or
the date of the crucifixion, would not change the result. The
prediction fits Jesus even allowing for the largest possible
uncertainties in chronology." (Newman R.C., "The Time of the
Messiah," [1981], IBRI Research Report #9, 1988.
http://www.ibri.org/09timeofmessiah.htm)
PR>Now you appear to be claiming it works out to within about 3 years
>of the crucifixion.
See above on the start of Jesus ministry. This is a subject on which
even experts disagree on. Some claim it only lasted one years and
others 3-4 years. I previously thought it was 3 years, but I have not
studied the matter in depth. I am now more clear on when Jesus
started His ministry ~27/28AD, but I am less clear on when He
ended it (i.e. His crucifixion). I assume the latter was ~30-33AD.
So I am happy with any terminus ad quem of Dan 9:24-27 that
falls within ~27-33AD.
PR>You said you'd be quite happy to work it through ; but you seem to have
>half a dozen different calculations going here.
No. I have narrowed my preferred interpretation down to *three*
possibilities:
A terminus a quo of 445-444BC (Neh 2:1-8) and "sevens" being either:
1. 360-day years (=~32AD); or 2. sabbath day cycles (=~28-35AD); or
3. A terminus a quo of 457BC (Ezr 7:11-16) and "sevens" being 365
day years (=~27AD).
Of the above three possibilities, 1 and 2 seem the objectively best, in
having a terminus a quo which is a decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Dan
9:25; Neh 2:5) and using Jewish methods of calculating the "sevens"
Dan 9:24-26).
And of 1 and 2, I am leaning more towards 2., because of its "sevens"
link with Ex., Lev., Jer. and Dan. But I need to study all the ramifications
and I will do this when I write up my FAQ.
>SJ>But it is interesting that there is at least one reasonable interpretation
>that works out to the day.
>PR>No it isn't. The apologist spent more time fixing it, that's all. I can only
>presume you mean Anderson here. He cheats even more. His calculations
>are wrong incidentally. I'll get my friend the dreadful head in the sand
>closed minded committed Christian Paul Smith to send you his
>list of days if you like.
Again I note Paul's need to exaggerate in order to bolster his weak
case. Anderson might be wrong, but that doesn't mean he "cheats".
PR>I'll tell you what happened. Apologists have looked at the passage and
>>said "How can we convert this to a prophecy ?". Well, we can't use
>>that and that, because it doesn't quite work out, but let's use this and
>>add this factor in, and hey it works.
>SJ>Again Paul produces no evidence for his assertions.
>PR>This is common sense.
No its not. It is just Paul's biased *assumption* that that is how
apologists work in interpreting this passage.
PR>It is not that far from your alleged "Scientific Method"
>in #2 either. Or maybe I should say it is a "reasonable interpretation". I
>cannot believe you really don't think apologists work like this.
I agree that Paul "cannot believe" it! The problem is Paul's *prejudice*
which prevents him being open minded enough to consider more
charitable and likely possibilities.
PR>You don't
>really think they found the "possible" 360 day or 6/7 year calculation FIRST
>do you hahahahahahaha.
No, of course not. I have previously said that being Christians they
assume that: 1) Jesus is the Messiah; and 2) Daniel 9:24-27 is supernatural
prophecy predicting the Messiah's coming and death.
Working from those assumptions, apologists would, consistent with
their basic assumptions, work backwards to try to see which set of
interpretations (if any) best fits all the facts.
And one of the facts is that the 1st century AD Jews expected the
Messiah to come at that time, which confirms that an interpretation
which assumes the terminus a quo and sevens work out to the 1st
century AD, is in accordance with Jewish custom.
Paul, OTOH, assumes the opposite, and he works backwards from his
assumptions to come up with a terminus a quo and "sevens" which
don't terminate in Jesus' time.
But to date Paul has not told us what *his* favoured terminus ad quo
and interpretations of the "sevens" are and why.
>PR>This is how the Gospel "prophecies" were put together.
>SJ>So Paul asserts. But where is his *evidence*? Paul's whole argument is
>from his personal incredulity that Jesus really could be the Messiah.
>PR>Not really. if you looked at the composition of the Bible you might see
>what I mean.
No. But I regard this as a red herring by Paul to divert attention away
from Dan 9:24-27.
>>SJ>But anytime within the seven years of Daniel's 69th `week'
>>would be "precise".
>>PR>Well, actually it's a fib, given that as any
>>>fule kno we don't know when Jesus was crucified.
>>SJ>According to Encyclopaedia Britannica it was about 30AD:
>>[snip quote EB]
>>PR>And according to umpteen other calculations its everything from
>>about 16AD to about 45AD.
>SJ>Paul give no evidence for this assertion either. But it could only be
>between 26-36AD because that is the span of the reign of Pontius
>Pilate:
>PR>I agree that is the most likely span.
If Paul regards between "26-36AD" as "the most likely span" that is
sufficient for my purposes.
BTW since Paul is such a stickler for posting all the facts bearing on
one's argument the first time, why didn't Paul end his "...according to
umpteen other calculations its everything from about 16AD to about
45AD" with "however I agree that 26-36AD is the most likely span?
PR>However, there are other calculations.
>I'm amazed you don't know them.
I now regard this sort of thing by Paul as just bluff. *Anyone* could
say this, even someone who hasn't a clue if there were any "other
calculations". If Paul knows of any "other calculations" let him post
them.
PR>The Pilate argument is important but not decisive.
See above on bluff. If Paul knows the pros and cons of "The Pilate
argument" let him post them. Otherwise I will find it hard not to
conclude that Paul just makes this sort of thing up and then puts it in a
pontificating way so it sounds authoritative.
>SJ>d. AD 36
>Roman prefect (governor) of Judaea (ad 26-36) under the emperor
>Tiberius; he presided at the trial of Jesus and gave the order for his
>crucifixion.
>PR>Odd that his behaviour the rest of the time bears no resemblance
to
>that in the Gospels. Basically he was a complete bastard, Philo and
>Josephus portray him as detestable, no kindliness.
I am not even sure how Paul's last sentence is meant to apply to his fist.
But anyway I regard this as yet another red-herring to divert attention
away from Dan 9:24-27.
>PR>The truth is we don't know. But by
>>*far* the most common quoted dates are 32/33AD.
SJ>For good reason. First, Jesus began his public ministry after John the
>Baptist had begun his, in 28 or 29AD:
See above on these dates, which probably should be earlier.
PR>[snip]
>PR>I don't disagree with this.
See above.
PR>However, it does raise questions about the
>reasonableness of exact day claims.
See above.
>PR>Not really. It depends what you mean. Christians are significant, but
>>>Christ himself is not as a person.
>SJ>Is Paul here saying that the person Jesus never existed?:
>PR>No. Read it again. Of course, a cynic would suggest this is a diversion
>>tactic.
>SJ>Sorry, I read it wrong. But now I don't know how Paul can justify his claim
>that "Christ himself is not" ["significant"] "as a person".
>
>Christianity is unique among all religions built on the person of Jesus. If
>He turned out to have never existed, or not to have risen from the dead, then
>Christianity would collapse. I personally would cease being a Christian.
>PR>No, you don't get it. The person of Christ appears to have been
>insignificant.
>This is why there is so little about him outside the Gospels,. and all that
>there
>is is late. Given some of the claims in the NT about Jesus fame, one would
>expect more notice to have been taken.
I have answered this before. Paul is simply wrong. I would confidently
expect that the vast majority of non-Christian historians would disagree
with him.
Given that hardly anything has survived from the 1st century, what
extra-Biblical notice that was taken of Jesus is remarkable, and is, if
anything, *more* than I would have expected.
>PR>Steve Jones: (quoting)
>>ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA Jesus Christ Non-Christian sources ...
>SJ>These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the
opponents
>of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus
>SJ>Paul does not comment on this?
PR>IT'S HERE CAN'T YOU READ vv
Yes. But I still can't see Paul's comments re this. But Paul need not
bother pointing them out or reposting them. Now I realise the
emptiness of Paul's way of arguing without evidence, I am trying to
wind up this thread.
>>PR>No. Christianity was insignificant for a long time
>SJ>This is false as I have pointed out in another post. But I don't want to
>repeat my evidence as that will create multiple posts on the same topic.
>PR>I must have missed it. I have claimed (though some of it might be
>w/DNAUnion!) that Jesus was insignificant until about 100AD.
Regrettably, some of my posts got out of order, for which I again
apologise. But I have answered this at length previously and Paul
would have received it by now.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces
me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes
possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue
their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best
arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda
and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does
it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would
want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them
as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable
methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting
the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.,
2000, p.141)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 17 2000 - 18:11:54 EST