In 2Corinthians 12: 3&4 " caught away into paradise ". I'm sure if you refer back to verse 1, you will see that this is a supernatural vision.
Yes, it is a supernatural vision, but Paul regarded his vision as involving an actual visit to third heaven and Paradise. This was explained in the thread that I referred you to, which you apparently did not read. In 2 Corinthians 12:2, 4, Paul uses the verb harpazó "to seize, catch" to describe the manner of the ascent to heaven and this is the very same verb Paul uses in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 to refer to the rapture of saints to heaven:
"The Lord himself will descend from heaven (ouranou) with a shout....Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up (harpagésometha) together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (aera), and thus we shall always be with the Lord".
Thus Paul is talking about an ascent to heaven. Note also that Paul, significantly, says that the journey occurred either "in the body" or "out of the body" (khóris tou sómatos) in 2 Corinthians 12:3. This is also indicative of a heavenly assumption. Again, if you look elsewhere in Jewish literature at the language used to describe visions of heaven, you will find exactly the same thing. The vision of heaven in the Ascension of Isaiah was an out-of-the-body experience, for "the mind in his body was taken up from him" to ascend through the seven heavens (6:10-14). 2 Enoch also describes a vision of heaven which occurred when an angel lifted him up bodily to each of the seven heavens and he witnessed the glory of Paradise in third heaven (2 Enoch 8:1-3). The most famous story is that of four rabbis who were temporarily taken up into the heavenly Paradise, and the experience of Eden was so awesome and indescribable that only one, Rabbi Akiva (c. AD 60-135), returned unharmed. The others either died or returned deranged (Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah 14b). The language Paul uses of being "caught up" into third heaven speaks for itself.
On the other hand, Jesus was not explaining a vision but outrightly telling the robber that day, that he'd see him in paradise. As backed by other scripture, we know that paradise is an earthly one as only 144,000 annointed ones will be with Christ in the heavenly realm.
This statement does not represent what first-century Jews and Christians believed about Paradise; it is a Watchtower teaching. Paul himself located Paradise in third heaven, just as 2 Enoch 8:1-7 and Apocalypse of Moses 37:5 do. This is not a coincidence. Many other early sources agreed with the Apostle Paul that paradise was located in heaven (Testament of Abraham 11:1-10; 4 Ezra 4:7-8; 2 Baruch 4:6, 51:7-11; Life of Adam and Eve 25:3, 42:4 ). So what scripture uses the word "paradise" to refer to the earth? None. The phrase "paradise earth" does not occur in the Bible. The only "paradise" (going by the LXX) that could be construed as being on earth is the Garden of Eden of Genesis 2-3 but the first-century belief was quite specifically that the Garden of Eden was not destroyed by the Flood but remains preserved in heaven and would be revealed to the earth at the end of the age as the abode of the righteous ones. It is mentioned at times with New Jerusalem, as the garden planted inside the gates and city walls:
"And he shall open the gates of Paradise; he shall remove the sword that has threatened since Adam, and he will grant the saints to eat of the tree of life. The spirit of holiness shall be upon them, and Beliar shall be bound by him" (Testament of Levi 18:10-12).
"To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God....I saw the holy city, and the New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven...Then the angel showed me the river of life, rising from the throne of God and of the Lamb [in heaven] and flowing crystal-clear down the middle of the city street. On either side of the river were the trees of life, which bear twelve crops of fruit a year, one in each month, and the leaves of which are the cure of the pagans" (Revelation 2:7; 21:2; 22:1-2).
"And he shall take from Beliar the captives, the souls of the saints; and he shall turn the hearts of the disobedient ones to the Lord, and grant eternal peace to those who call upon him. And the saints shall refresh themselves in Eden; the righteous shall rejoice in New Jerusalem, which shall be eternally for the glorification of God" (Testament of Dan 5:11-12).
The concept in Revelation is not that Paradise and New Jerusalem are simply located on earth but that they "come down out of heaven," and Hebrews 12:22 similarly refers to "Mount Zion" as "the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God" where one finds "thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly" (compare Ezekiel 28:13-16, where "Eden, the garden of God" is located on the "mountain of God" in the midst of cherubs and fiery precious stones, and Revelation 21 which describes the precious stones adorning heavenly New Jerusalem). Thus we have a consistent concept that Apostle Paul also uses that locates Paradise in heaven during the present, which will be revealed to the earth in the future.
I prefer to believe that the translators were as knowlegeable as you and then some. They put the comma there, not me.
You may prefer to believe what you want, but surely you know that the vast majority of translators -- if so inclined to add a comma -- place it before the "today", not after it. Adding a comma is interpreting the text, not translating it, for no comma exists in the original text. I gave you solid reasons why one should consider "today" as belonging to the second clause. These are reasons based on the actual context of the passage. I see you have addressed none of these points.
