I posted this on one of Blondie's WT summaries a couple of weeks ago. It seemed to fit in with your thread. (I copied it - I'm lazy today!)
A couple years ago a man ranted with some sisters in field service about the NWT's "all sorts of" in 1 Tim 2:4. The sisters came to me and I checked the Greek and Lexicons and sure enough "all sorts of" is a possible translation of the Greek pas. Case closed. It only occurred later to me what the NWT was actually doing.
Verse 4 says that God's will is for "all" / "all sorts of" men to be saved. Verse 5 starts out by saying "For" 'there is one mediator between God and men.' According to the AMG Greek lexicon, "For" is a causative particle ... expressing the reason for what has been [said] before." In other words, God wants "all" / "all sorts of" men to be saved as members of the covenant that Jesus mediates. The NWT can't say "all" because that would go beyond the 144,000 that the Society says are the only ones in that covenant. From their standpoint it has to be "all sorts of" or "all kinds of" as opposed to "all." Of course, the NWT doesn't mind saying "all" in 2 Peter 3:9 because there is no mention of the new covenant there. For the same reason they don't mind saying "all everywhere [should] repent" in Acts 17:30.
Some time later we had a KM article on the need to preach to "all sorts of" people (the article quoting from 1 Tim 2:4). I told the PO that the writer of the KM article didn't understand why the Society said "all sorts of" in that verse and, in effect, the KM article was misapplying the verse (according to how the Society wanted it understood). The PO acted like he knew what I was talking about, but he didn't seem pleased that I would suggest that the KM writer was ignorant about such things.
The Society uses 1 Tim 2:4, 5 one way when they talk about the new covenant and another way when it suits them. I have to give this to them, they "Adroitly (as in with great skill) set aside the commandment of God in order to retain [their] tradition." Mark 7:9
[end of copy]
I might add, it is understandable that they would skip around verse 5 since their application of it is contrary to the context. An additional point to show their misapplication is in the phrase in verse 5; "... between God and men." In the Greek text, "men" is without the definite article. You would think if Paul meant a small, select, and limited group of men, he would have used the article to define them (as in "... between God and THE men") The lack of the article before men would give it the sense of 'men in general', that is, humans, not just males. (Of course, implied in that is that they would be believing humans.)
I was at the one day a couple of weeks ago and I listened closely to this discussion. The CO did the same as in your recording. No doubt sticking closely with his Society provided outline.
My grandaughter just got on my lap, so I have to quit typing now.
