According to you, PFAL is a more pure form of the Word of God. Therefore, it should have no contradictions at all, much less a long list that can be broken up into errors of interpretation and actual errors.
Very nice try, but it contradicts your whole rationale that PFAL is needed because the Bible has been corrupted.
Plus, Mike, if you can tear your conscience away from that hot-iron-searing for a moment, you might want to have a look at Rafael's examinations of the first two collateral volumes. They're a lot more objective than you're giving him credit for.
Maybe it was hot air or a lie when I said I have a lot more. It's mostly in interpretation and application and may not fit into Raf's rules :)-->.
If the out-of-fellowship, standing and state teachings are wrong (which I believe it is). Then a whole lot of pfal is wrong as it was a major portion of the class and filtered into the renewed mind sections and a ton of sns and fellowships up and down the "tree". Not to mention the practical application of this kind of thinking that produces a whole lot of self condemnation. Therefore (at least for me) a better understanding of the new testament and how to enjoy the freedom we have been given.
The class teaches all apparent contradictions in the bible lie either in our understanding or in translation. I think the translation and interpretation was tweaked to fit the understanding instead of trying to actually understand it better.
"in the Lord" and "in Christ" We were taught that one was standing and one was state. I can't remember which is which at the moment. But I don't think that is the correct understanding at all.
Most of the new testament seems to have been tweaked to fit into this in fellowship one minute and out of fellowship the next teaching. I think it was used to keep us off balance and distracted from seeing clearly-it was in "my story" if I ever tell it fully.
What twi considered to be sin or broken fellowship is bunch of bull too. Puts 1 John in a different light if sin is sin according to the scripture and not twi's version of broken fellowship. And the "As He Is" chapter is seriously flawed.
My thinking on this is not set in stone but I do know that twi's version of what it is to walk with God just ain't right.
I have only read a little here and I don't want to start any argument, but I have often wondered about VPW's emphatic stand that "Christians" were called that because they were always talking about "Christ in them." Isn't that obviously an error considering how languages work? I mean, we don't call Italians that because they are always talking about Italy being in them...
I know it might look strange that I posted on this thread "actual errors in pfal" and in my last post I referenced 1 John while you guys were talking about some of the stuff in 1 John in the doctrinal section. Could have referenced Romans 8 or 12 or another set of scriptures.
I swear I didn't know that thread was happening. After noone else posted on the actual errors thread I started looking to see where everyone went and saw that thread. I'm not some kind of weird troll or something. Maybe you didn't think it was strange or something but I thought you might. I kinda thought it was!?
I hardly ever look at the doctrinal section. I guess I'll take a look at it more.
You are absolutely right. And when people in Acts are called followers the Way it is not Jesus. All groups outside of the Jewish orthodoxy felt they were the ones in the know.
The best way to look at PFAL is watching it being carted away by the garbage truck or burning.
The teacher lied to us and made up great stories, why do we believe his other works?
The suffix "ian" means "follower of" or "subsrciber to a viewpoint or position."
Wierwille's etymology of "Christian" is ludicrous. Excellent catch.
*****
Christ in you is sonship. You in Christ is fellowship. This distinction is horse... never mind.
Vertical Limit, I think you nailed that one right from the start: it's an interpretation error, not a "2+2=5" error. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that it IS an error. A few verses might persuade me otherwise. I'll study it if you will.
I wouldn't worry about parroting the doctrinal threads, though. The point of this thread is to sort out actual errors in PFAL. Of necessity, there will be some overlap.
WordWolf: I always chuckled at that observation. If only "the dead in Christ" will rise, then those who are NOT in fellowship at the time of their death will not rise, and that goes against a MAJOR TWI and PFAL doctrine.
I don't think this is in PFAL, but it's in Are the Dead Alive Now:
Wierwille's definition of "apostasia" ("a departure") is simply incorrect. As Inigo Montoya would say: you keep using that word. I do no sink it means what you sink it means.
Apostasia means "rebellion." It is always a bad thing. It is NOT a reference to the rapture or the gathering together or the first resurrection or any other good time will be had by all Biblical prophecy. It's a BAD THING, and we don't want to be a part of it.
You know better than anyone how long I've given thought to this subject, so I'm going to turn it around and place the burden on you:
Can you find, historically, a single usage of apostasia that is positive or neutral. It's always a rebellion, far as my research has taken me.
The question then becomes, if I'm right, what is the context of its usage in II Thessalonians? Is it a rebellion in God's favor? Or is it a rebellion against God? I don't know that the context is that clear, but I will say this: it does not mean "departure" any more than "overthrow" means to throw a basktball over the net. I think this is where Plots' discussion of ekklesia comes in handy: no one reading "apostasia" would break it into its composite words to come up with a technical meaning. Except, of course, Victor Paul Wierwille.
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, Josephi vita (ed. B. Niese) section 43 (KJV)
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 164
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 82
In the Vulgate Jerome translates apostasia into "discessio" which is mostly translated into 'division' from the Latin Classics, as in political divisions.
However, In Acts 20:29 Jerome also translates the Greek 'aphixis" into 'discessio(nem) in the Latin. Aphixis is translated "depart" in the KJV. Aphixis is only used this one time in the NT. In Classical litreature it can mean either arrive or depart.
Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing..." Refering to either Paul's departing to Jerusalem
English ----------------- Greek --------------------- Latin
If we look at the words translated 'depart' rom the Greek NT.
Apochoreo - Depart - 3
Aperchomai - Depart - 27
Metabaino - Depart - 7
poreuomai - 11
Ok, that enough. (There may be more.)
The only language evidence that I see that might suggest that "apostasia" be translated as "depart" is Jerome's rendering of both 'aphixis' and "apostasia" into the Latin 'descessio'. But this is a very weak linkage. The Latin may have had several meaning for 'descissio', but it seems pretty clear that in the Greek that 'apostasia' and 'aphaxis' are not synonymous. Apostasia in every other ocurence I can find outside of the NT means rebellion. 'Forsake' applies in Acts 21:21 in that these rebelled against Paul's teachings and thererfore forsook him.
It would be an exception and departure in usage for apostasia to mean 'departure' in the sense of a gathering together. There are other words in the Greek that would fit much better if 'departure' were the intended meaning. The context strongly suggests rebellion.
If we are to build or support a doctrine of a premillenial rapture, we need to find other verses.
Wordwolf, literal translations of Greek words are nice, but they quite often do not convey the common usage and meaning. TWI made a lot of mistakes by doing this. - In French, a potato is called a "pomme de terre" . This translates to "apple of the ground". But it is certainly not an apple. Greek is much the same.
This is a very minor point, but one that struck me a while ago.
A couple of times in the class V.P. makes mention of devil worshippers or "hooky-pook" artists - as he called them and then mentioned "Ouija" boards as if they were objects of long-standing and evil repute.
In actuality the "Ouija" board is quite a recent invention. It was first introduced as a novelty item in the late 19th century. And, despite what Wierwille taught and many religious folks still believe today, there's little "evil" involved with it, just a simple quirk known as the "ideomotor effect".
Anyone who is sure that the devil is the power behind the messages emanating from the devious tool need only blindfold the participants and then see what happens to the "messages" from beyond. Funny how a simple blindfold can defeat the power of the devil.
geo.
[This message was edited by George Aar on January 16, 2003 at 9:26.]
The word in Luke 14:33 is apotasso, not apostasia. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
Acts 21:21 contains the only other NT usage of this word (besides II Thessalonians).
I see no evidence of positive usage. The Septuagint, while not necessarily authoritative, will offer help regarding the usage of this word.
George,
I did not know that. Very enlightening.
In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. Maybe they didn't have Oija boards. But they had other stuff.
In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. "
I don't know if Wierwille KNEW that Ouija boards are a recent invention. But if he did, I think it's a fair teaching tool. Yes, you got the word right - pedagogical.
By the way, I wouldn't rely so heavily on Gamaliel if I were you. Wierwille's movement came to nought.
But then, we already agreed on another thread that Gamaliel was wrong.
"Wierwille's movement came to nought..." in some, but nought in others! It ain't over till the fatted calf sings.
Gamiel was semi-wong. He certainly was appreciated by Petr and John. They accepted his intervention.
Dr knew that there were no machine guns in the OT, so he felt free to use them as teaching devices. For him to latch onto a factually innacurate device does not negate tht truth that the inaccuracy helps illustrate.
Ditto for the patent date on Milton Bradley's version of the hoochie coochie board.
In the older 1930's movie version of the
"Hunchback of Notre Dame" with Charles Laughton, a spinning knife is used as a crude polygraph.
Pendants answering "yes-no" questions were used long before the Magic Eight Ball or even modern bowling were invented.
A truth may be illustrated by words that are not true to fact. This is the definition of figure of speech we were given.
Eventually, I think all of these items on this thread are legitimate for discusion and inquiry. Many in the past I already did so with, just not posted... yet.
I'm thinking of starting a thead for old grads who want to COME BACK to PFAL for a second close look. On this proposed thread, "Apparent PFAL Contradictions" would be fair game for many sub-discussions and side-discussions.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
208
62
95
53
Popular Days
Jan 3
56
Jan 28
53
Jan 17
52
Jan 27
46
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 208 posts
Jbarrax 62 posts
Zixar 95 posts
Mike 53 posts
Popular Days
Jan 3 2003
56 posts
Jan 28 2003
53 posts
Jan 17 2003
52 posts
Jan 27 2003
46 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
Clear as the difference between all with a distinction and all without distinction. See, to those unaware of the circumstances that brought about this thread, I look like I'm nitpicking to prove Wier
Raf
I'm not talking about errors that are subject to interpretation. Whether you believe the dead are alive now, for example, really depends on your worldview and your interpretation of scripture. Whether
Larry P2
And let's not forget the one about "All the women in the Kingdom belong to the King." Which proves that he was a lecherous piece of sh!t communicating his desire for a steady stream of young, gullibl
Vertical Limit
If that's all the contradictions they could come up with I would say King James and company did a pretty good job!!!!
There is a lot in pfal and the books that contradicts what the bible says. Some were mentioned here and I got more too!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Please share, Vertical Limit, as you have opportunity!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
According to you, PFAL is a more pure form of the Word of God. Therefore, it should have no contradictions at all, much less a long list that can be broken up into errors of interpretation and actual errors.
Very nice try, but it contradicts your whole rationale that PFAL is needed because the Bible has been corrupted.
Dang nice try, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Plus, Mike, if you can tear your conscience away from that hot-iron-searing for a moment, you might want to have a look at Rafael's examinations of the first two collateral volumes. They're a lot more objective than you're giving him credit for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Maybe it was hot air or a lie when I said I have a lot more. It's mostly in interpretation and application and may not fit into Raf's rules
:)-->.
If the out-of-fellowship, standing and state teachings are wrong (which I believe it is). Then a whole lot of pfal is wrong as it was a major portion of the class and filtered into the renewed mind sections and a ton of sns and fellowships up and down the "tree". Not to mention the practical application of this kind of thinking that produces a whole lot of self condemnation. Therefore (at least for me) a better understanding of the new testament and how to enjoy the freedom we have been given.
The class teaches all apparent contradictions in the bible lie either in our understanding or in translation. I think the translation and interpretation was tweaked to fit the understanding instead of trying to actually understand it better.
"in the Lord" and "in Christ" We were taught that one was standing and one was state. I can't remember which is which at the moment. But I don't think that is the correct understanding at all.
Most of the new testament seems to have been tweaked to fit into this in fellowship one minute and out of fellowship the next teaching. I think it was used to keep us off balance and distracted from seeing clearly-it was in "my story" if I ever tell it fully.
What twi considered to be sin or broken fellowship is bunch of bull too. Puts 1 John in a different light if sin is sin according to the scripture and not twi's version of broken fellowship. And the "As He Is" chapter is seriously flawed.
My thinking on this is not set in stone but I do know that twi's version of what it is to walk with God just ain't right.
What ya think Raf or anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Microbe
I have only read a little here and I don't want to start any argument, but I have often wondered about VPW's emphatic stand that "Christians" were called that because they were always talking about "Christ in them." Isn't that obviously an error considering how languages work? I mean, we don't call Italians that because they are always talking about Italy being in them...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Holy Crap!
I know it might look strange that I posted on this thread "actual errors in pfal" and in my last post I referenced 1 John while you guys were talking about some of the stuff in 1 John in the doctrinal section. Could have referenced Romans 8 or 12 or another set of scriptures.
I swear I didn't know that thread was happening. After noone else posted on the actual errors thread I started looking to see where everyone went and saw that thread. I'm not some kind of weird troll or something. Maybe you didn't think it was strange or something but I thought you might. I kinda thought it was!?
I hardly ever look at the doctrinal section. I guess I'll take a look at it more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vertical Limit
Well........... here's another one,
"I have no friends when it comes to the Word Of God"
Jesus said something like that to his 12 apostles. VPW ain't Jesus.
I'll have any friends I want!
:P-->
(Probably said before)
Add on--
Thinking more about that phrase that was so widely used in twi. twi breaks it's own "biblical principles we must adhere to" rule
"the verse must be understood in light of to whom it is addressed"
John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
That was Jesus addressing his apostles. And, according to twi, in the "gospel administration" to boot.
I don't see where else that statement could have come from.
Another add on--
"interpretation and application must be understood in light of to whom it is addressed"
That's the one i think---
hmmm edited 3 times. I'm either talking to myself or just entertaining myself or both.
What the heck...
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 10, 2003 at 20:25.]
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 10, 2003 at 20:41.]
[This message was edited by Vertical Limit on January 10, 2003 at 21:00.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
You are absolutely right. And when people in Acts are called followers the Way it is not Jesus. All groups outside of the Jewish orthodoxy felt they were the ones in the know.
The best way to look at PFAL is watching it being carted away by the garbage truck or burning.
The teacher lied to us and made up great stories, why do we believe his other works?
o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Rafael,
Vertical Limit just reminded me of the famous
"'in Christ' is a temporary position of the
moment" (I forgot which was supposed to be
'standing' & which was 'state' also.)
Remember that other fellow who pointed out the
'dead in Christ' rise first?
So, those would be the corpses lying in
harmony with Jesus, I take it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hmmm.
Rastafari in you?
Italy in you?
Rael in you?
Antidisestablishmentary in you?
Trinity in you?
The suffix "ian" means "follower of" or "subsrciber to a viewpoint or position."
Wierwille's etymology of "Christian" is ludicrous. Excellent catch.
*****
Christ in you is sonship. You in Christ is fellowship. This distinction is horse... never mind.
Vertical Limit, I think you nailed that one right from the start: it's an interpretation error, not a "2+2=5" error. But I agree with you wholeheartedly that it IS an error. A few verses might persuade me otherwise. I'll study it if you will.
I wouldn't worry about parroting the doctrinal threads, though. The point of this thread is to sort out actual errors in PFAL. Of necessity, there will be some overlap.
WordWolf: I always chuckled at that observation. If only "the dead in Christ" will rise, then those who are NOT in fellowship at the time of their death will not rise, and that goes against a MAJOR TWI and PFAL doctrine.
I don't think this is in PFAL, but it's in Are the Dead Alive Now:
Wierwille's definition of "apostasia" ("a departure") is simply incorrect. As Inigo Montoya would say: you keep using that word. I do no sink it means what you sink it means.
Apostasia means "rebellion." It is always a bad thing. It is NOT a reference to the rapture or the gathering together or the first resurrection or any other good time will be had by all Biblical prophecy. It's a BAD THING, and we don't want to be a part of it.
Wierwille's definition is fictional.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
About 'apostasia',
I think the most literal translation would be
"a moving away from". (Those of you who know
your Greek, feel free to chime in & embarrass
the hell out of me.)
The word "apostasia" becoming "apostasy" is,
to me, an example of the specialization of
language. Over 2,000 years, some definitions
drift. Another example is "katabole", which,
nowadays, has given a few people the word
"katabolism". That word has nothing to do with
the meaning of 'katabole' at the time the Bible
was written. (It MAY, however, have inspired
someone to go into left field on the subject.)
Anyway, 'a moving away from', as I see it.
Since, at the time that verse is speaking of,
both a positive and negative moving away from
is current (the Rapture/Gathering Together/
Blessed Hope and the degeneration of society as
the man of sins is revealed), I say they're
BOTH right, since BOTH happen at the time.
*waits for Greek scholars to ram him*
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WordWolf:
You know better than anyone how long I've given thought to this subject, so I'm going to turn it around and place the burden on you:
Can you find, historically, a single usage of apostasia that is positive or neutral. It's always a rebellion, far as my research has taken me.
The question then becomes, if I'm right, what is the context of its usage in II Thessalonians? Is it a rebellion in God's favor? Or is it a rebellion against God? I don't know that the context is that clear, but I will say this: it does not mean "departure" any more than "overthrow" means to throw a basktball over the net. I think this is where Plots' discussion of ekklesia comes in handy: no one reading "apostasia" would break it into its composite words to come up with a technical meaning. Except, of course, Victor Paul Wierwille.
Am I right? Am I wrong? Carry on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Rafael,
Luke 14:33.
Seems to me the CONNOTATION of "apostasia" (or
the cognate thereof) is positive here-although
the KJV has picked as negative a word to
translate its DENOTATION into as possible.
(Unless someone's ready to argue that being
Christ's disciple is of equal or lesser value
than all his earthy possessions.)
Rafael, I still say that events falling under
both a positive AND a negative connotation
occur virtually simultaneously, and both right
in the context of that verse. So, I still say
that BOTH translations are correct in this
instance, depending on which event you
reference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Apostasia
Forsake - Acts 21:21 (KJV)
Fallng away - II Thesalonians 2:3 ( KJV)
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, Josephi vita (ed. B. Niese) section 43 (KJV)
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 164
Rebellion - Flavius Josephus, De bello Judaico libri vii (ed. B. Niese) book 7, section 82
In the Vulgate Jerome translates apostasia into "discessio" which is mostly translated into 'division' from the Latin Classics, as in political divisions.
However, In Acts 20:29 Jerome also translates the Greek 'aphixis" into 'discessio(nem) in the Latin. Aphixis is translated "depart" in the KJV. Aphixis is only used this one time in the NT. In Classical litreature it can mean either arrive or depart.
Acts 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departing..." Refering to either Paul's departing to Jerusalem
English ----------------- Greek --------------------- Latin
Falling away ------- apostaisa ----------------- discessio
Forsake ------------ apsotasia ------------------ discessio
Depart ------------- aphixis --------------------- descissio
If we look at the words translated 'depart' rom the Greek NT.
Apochoreo - Depart - 3
Aperchomai - Depart - 27
Metabaino - Depart - 7
poreuomai - 11
Ok, that enough. (There may be more.)
The only language evidence that I see that might suggest that "apostasia" be translated as "depart" is Jerome's rendering of both 'aphixis' and "apostasia" into the Latin 'descessio'. But this is a very weak linkage. The Latin may have had several meaning for 'descissio', but it seems pretty clear that in the Greek that 'apostasia' and 'aphaxis' are not synonymous. Apostasia in every other ocurence I can find outside of the NT means rebellion. 'Forsake' applies in Acts 21:21 in that these rebelled against Paul's teachings and thererfore forsook him.
It would be an exception and departure in usage for apostasia to mean 'departure' in the sense of a gathering together. There are other words in the Greek that would fit much better if 'departure' were the intended meaning. The context strongly suggests rebellion.
If we are to build or support a doctrine of a premillenial rapture, we need to find other verses.
Wordwolf, literal translations of Greek words are nice, but they quite often do not convey the common usage and meaning. TWI made a lot of mistakes by doing this. - In French, a potato is called a "pomme de terre" . This translates to "apple of the ground". But it is certainly not an apple. Greek is much the same.
Goey
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
This is a very minor point, but one that struck me a while ago.
A couple of times in the class V.P. makes mention of devil worshippers or "hooky-pook" artists - as he called them and then mentioned "Ouija" boards as if they were objects of long-standing and evil repute.
In actuality the "Ouija" board is quite a recent invention. It was first introduced as a novelty item in the late 19th century. And, despite what Wierwille taught and many religious folks still believe today, there's little "evil" involved with it, just a simple quirk known as the "ideomotor effect".
Anyone who is sure that the devil is the power behind the messages emanating from the devious tool need only blindfold the participants and then see what happens to the "messages" from beyond. Funny how a simple blindfold can defeat the power of the devil.
geo.
[This message was edited by George Aar on January 16, 2003 at 9:26.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
WordWolf, you disappoint me old friend.
The word in Luke 14:33 is apotasso, not apostasia. It is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.
Acts 21:21 contains the only other NT usage of this word (besides II Thessalonians).
I see no evidence of positive usage. The Septuagint, while not necessarily authoritative, will offer help regarding the usage of this word.
George,
I did not know that. Very enlightening.
In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. Maybe they didn't have Oija boards. But they had other stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ah! Rafael,
Something we can agree on. You wrote:
"I did not know that. Very enlightening.
In my opinion, it's fair game to use modern anachronisms to make a point (ie, the prophet Elisha doesn't come out to meet Naaman because he's having tea and chocolate chip cookies). It's a device. "
Another term is pedagogical (sp?) tool?
I've scolded for usuing things like this.
Where's Gamiel when we need him?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't know if Wierwille KNEW that Ouija boards are a recent invention. But if he did, I think it's a fair teaching tool. Yes, you got the word right - pedagogical.
By the way, I wouldn't rely so heavily on Gamaliel if I were you. Wierwille's movement came to nought.
But then, we already agreed on another thread that Gamaliel was wrong.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
"Wierwille's movement came to nought..." in some, but nought in others! It ain't over till the fatted calf sings.
Gamiel was semi-wong. He certainly was appreciated by Petr and John. They accepted his intervention.
Dr knew that there were no machine guns in the OT, so he felt free to use them as teaching devices. For him to latch onto a factually innacurate device does not negate tht truth that the inaccuracy helps illustrate.
Ditto for the patent date on Milton Bradley's version of the hoochie coochie board.
In the older 1930's movie version of the
"Hunchback of Notre Dame" with Charles Laughton, a spinning knife is used as a crude polygraph.
Pendants answering "yes-no" questions were used long before the Magic Eight Ball or even modern bowling were invented.
A truth may be illustrated by words that are not true to fact. This is the definition of figure of speech we were given.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's great, Mike. Now, if my calculations are right, you have about 12-15 other actual errors to address.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
mike,
i'm sorry, but that typo is too funny.
:D-->
I like to think I'm more wong than anything, but that's just the testosterone talking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Lucky Lindy,
Just for you, I'll refrain from editing that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Rafael,
Eventually, I think all of these items on this thread are legitimate for discusion and inquiry. Many in the past I already did so with, just not posted... yet.
I'm thinking of starting a thead for old grads who want to COME BACK to PFAL for a second close look. On this proposed thread, "Apparent PFAL Contradictions" would be fair game for many sub-discussions and side-discussions.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.