The Bible statement in Acts 9.12 reads "Ananias coming in and putting his hands on him, that he might receive his sight" not that he only partly received it. V.17 goes on "Ananias entered the house and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto you in the way as you came, has sent me that you might receive your sight". Can one say that Ananias failed to give Paul back his sight as authorised?

2 Cor.10.10 reads "For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible". If they praised his letters, which we know to be true, why lie about his speech when all were there to hear? In 1 Cor. 2.1 he says "When I came to you, I came not with excellency of speech" and again in 2 Cor. 11.6. "But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge". So in Gal. 4.13 "Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you at the first, and my temptation (trial) which was in my flesh you despised not, nor rejected". This could not be referring to sight; it clearly referred to his preaching and that would mean his voice. Paul did not speak the Truth with his eyes; the 16th verse declares "Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth? Does this not clearly declare that it was not his eyes that offended them but his tongue, suggesting that this thorn in the flesh that Paul prayed three times to have removed was an impediment in his speech?