Notice how they state disfellowshipping for a man who unrepentently practices fornication. (it was beyond even that, but with his own mother! in the scriptures )
I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. What The Watchtower says is exactly what the Bible says. It wasn't his mother. If it had been his mother, Paul would surely have said so. It was his father's wife, so presumably his stepmother.
But it gets even better....in paragraph 15 they said Paul instructed them to reinstate him after being repentant. The scriptures provided in 2 Corinthians. Now ask anyone to point out where in those scriptures that man in the first letter is referenced? It has NOTHING to do with him.
I hardly think that the idea that 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2 are referring to the same case is unique to Jehovah's Witnesses or invented by them. No doubt there are a variety of opinions, but a fair number of commentaries agree with what The Watchtower said:
"If any have caused grief. The reference in this indirect way is to the incestuous person named in 1Co 5:1." (People's New Testament, 1891)
"Any. Referring to the incestuous person." (Vincent's Word Studies)
"If any have caused grief - There is doubtless here an allusion to the incestuous person." (Albert Barnes)
"But, if any have caused grief - Here he seems to refer particularly to the cause of the incestuous person." (Adam Clarke)
"he handles the releasing and unloosing of the incestuous person" (Geneva Bible commentary)
"But if any have caused grief,.... The incestuous person is here manifestly designed" (John Gill)
"In these verses the apostle treats concerning the incestuous person who had been excommunicated" (Matthew Henry)
"The “any” is a delicate way of referring to the incestuous person." (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown commentary)
What makes you think that Paul was talking about a different case in 2 Corinthians?
Then, the REAL deception......in paragraph 15, they make the statement, "a repentant sinnerought to be readmitted to
the congregation, it indicates that he has been forgiven by Jehovah." WOW, so only through the elders readmitting someone, is he forgiven by Jehovah. I guess if they do not readmitt him, he is NOT forgiven. Again, where in the bible is that backed up?
You're misrepresenting the sense of the article. The entire paragraph says:
"What do we learn from this account? It saddens us when individuals have to be disfellowshipped. They may have brought dishonor upon God’s name and discredited the congregation. They may even have sinned against us personally. Yet, when the elders appointed to examine the case determine, in line with Jehovah’s direction, that a repentant sinner ought to be readmitted to the congregation, it indicates that he has been forgiven by Jehovah. (Matt. 18:17-20) Should we not seek to imitate Him? Indeed, to be harsh and unforgiving would be tantamount
to opposing Jehovah. In order to contribute to the peace and unity of God’s congregation and to have Jehovah’s approval, should we not, rather, ‘confirm our love’ for sinners who truly repent and are reinstated?"
The article clearly states that when the elders determine that a repentant sinner ought to be readmitted, it indicates that he has been forgiven [past tense] by Jehovah. In other words, the article does not say that someone is forgiven by Jehovah "through the elders readmitting [him]", as you state. Actually, it says the opposite: the elders' job is to determine whether the person has been forgiven by Jehovah.
This is confirmed by what previous Watchtower articles have said, commenting on the same verses (Matthew 18:17-20):
"Their decision should accurately reflect the way Jehovah and Christ consider the matter. What they symbolically ‘bind’ (find guilty) or ‘loose’ (find innocent) on earth should be what has already been bound or loosed in heaven—as revealed by what is written in the inspired Word of God. If they pray to Jehovah in Jesus’ name, Jesus will be “in their midst” to help them." (July 1, 1992, page 16)
"In matters involving serious violations of God’s law, responsible men in the congregation would have to judge matters and decide whether a wrongdoer should be “bound” (viewed as guilty) or “loosed” (acquitted). Did this mean that heaven would follow the decisions of humans? No. As Bible scholar Robert Young indicates, any decision made by the disciples would follow heaven’s decision, not precede it. He says that verse 18 should literally read: What you bind on earth “shall be that which has been bound (already)” in heaven.
Really, it is unreasonable to think that any imperfect human could make decisions that would be binding upon those in the heavenly courts." (March 15, 1991, page 5)
"In making such a decision, overseers need to adhere closely to instructions in Jehovah’s Word. Thus, when they find an individual guilty and worthy of punishment, the judgment ‘will already have been bound in heaven.’ And when they “loose on earth,” that is, find one innocent, it will already have been “loosed in heaven.” In such judicial deliberations, Jesus says, “where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst.”" (February 15, 1988, page 9)
Do they realize they are making the elders claim being able to forgive or not forgive sins? Who alone has that authority?
They aren't making any such claim (see above)
Jesus did actually state that his followers could forgive sins. He said: "If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you retain those of any persons, they stand retained.” (John 20:23) But The Watchtower has never claimed to be able to forgive sins or grant absolution in the manner of the Catholic church. It commented on this verse:
"Hence, any forgiving or not forgiving on the part of the elders would be in the sense of Jesus’ words at Matthew 18:18: “Truly I say to you men, Whatever things you may bind on earth will be things bound in heaven, and whatever things you may loose on earth will be things loosed in heaven.” Their actions would simply reflect Jehovah’s view of matters as presented in the Bible. (April 15, 1996, page 29)
I used to say for years when I was in that the guy mentioned in 2 Cor is not the same as the one in 1 Cor, of course nobody listened because the GB said different.
Probably no-one listened because it is quite obvious that he was talking about the same person. What makes you think otherwise? It's not just the GB who say so; so do many Bible scholars (see above)
It says in the direct Greek to English before rearranging the words...... "Wholly it is being heard in you fornication, and such fornication which not-but in the nations, as-and woman someone of the father to be having. " Don't know greek, but seems it could be saying incest, "someone of the father", his sister for example.
No. "Someone" is the subject of the sentence. "Woman" goes with "of the father," i.e. the father's wife and is the object.