Srecko Sostar

Okay, project this spiritually.  In the organization, are both “Jews” of “Israel” (anointed, Rom 2:29; 9:6-9; Gal 4:26-28)...
...And “uncircumcised Gentiles".
The governing leadership is suppose to be all “Jews” (I have some doubts about this latest crop).  The majority of elders are “Gentiles”.  Who, has given the elders power to convict other “Jews” as seditionists?  Who can put them to "death" in the spiritual sense?  (John 16:2; Rev 13:15)
The elders have been consistent in upholding the power of the GB, and vice versa; while the anointed “Jews” are told to follow the “oral tradition” of the organization.  (Matt 24:48-51)

.... and expecting obedience to, THEIR word – the word of men not inspired by Holy Spirit.
This is so well said.
What parallel do I see with the words of the apostles, to obey God rather than men? To whom did the apostles not want to submit? They did not want to obey Sanhedrin and the elders of the Jewish people. To the spiritual leaders of their own people and religion.
Did the members of Sanhedrin claim to be inspired by God? Did Sanhedrin claim not to be inspired by God? GB claims that they are not inspired, but that they must be obeyed.
Religious people, JW also, accept the claim that the Bible is inspired by God. And this fact (that the Word is inspired by God) provides in itself proof that people should accept God's guidelines and be obedient to that very Word.
On the other hand, we have the fact that GB is not inspired (according to their own claims). And that fact ("we are not inspired") provides the basis for what the apostles claimed, Not to obey (GB) people who are not inspired by God, because their “commandments” (doctrines) are not God’s, but human’s.
Was everything the Sanhedrin taught wrong and contrary to God’s Law and Word? I don't think we could say anything like that. But still, the Sanhedrin and many religious leaders, the elders, violated God’s law and God’s word in many things. Both in word and in spirit. That is why it was justified for the apostles to oppose it.
Today JWs have a Biblical precedent from the book of Acts, to oppose their religious leaders (GB and elders) for the same reasons and in the same way as it was in the 1st century.
Can Acts 5 be identified with Romans 13?
In Acts it is allowed to oppose spiritual authorities. The Epistle to the Romans calls for obedience to secular authorities with no alternative.
But whatever we personally decide, every choice carries good and bad consequences. Each of our choices will make us stronger or weaker, that we are winners or losers, happy or unhappy. “As long as we’re alive nothing is lost,” one man said.
 

.... and expecting obedience to, THEIR word – the word of men not inspired by Holy Spirit.
This is so well said.
What parallel do I see with the words of the apostles, to obey God rather than men? To whom did the apostles not want to submit? They did not want to obey Sanhedrin and the elders of the Jewish people. To the spiritual leaders of their own people and religion.
Did the members of Sanhedrin claim to be inspired by God? Did Sanhedrin claim not to be inspired by God? GB claims that they are not inspired, but that they must be obeyed.
Religious people, JW also, accept the claim that the Bible is inspired by God. And this fact (that the Word is inspired by God) provides in itself proof that people should accept God's guidelines and be obedient to that very Word.
On the other hand, we have the fact that GB is not inspired (according to their own claims). And that fact ("we are not inspired") provides the basis for what the apostles claimed, Not to obey (GB) people who are not inspired by God, because their “commandments” (doctrines) are not God’s, but human’s.
Was everything the Sanhedrin taught wrong and contrary to God’s Law and Word? I don't think we could say anything like that. But still, the Sanhedrin and many religious leaders, the elders, violated God’s law and God’s word in many things. Both in word and in spirit. That is why it was justified for the apostles to oppose it.
Today JWs have a Biblical precedent from the book of Acts, to oppose their religious leaders (GB and elders) for the same reasons and in the same way as it was in the 1st century.
Can Acts 5 be identified with Romans 13?
In Acts it is allowed to oppose spiritual authorities. The Epistle to the Romans calls for obedience to secular authorities with no alternative.
But whatever we personally decide, every choice carries good and bad consequences. Each of our choices will make us stronger or weaker, that we are winners or losers, happy or unhappy. “As long as we’re alive nothing is lost,” one man said.
 

.... and expecting obedience to, THEIR word – the word of men not inspired by Holy Spirit.
This is so well said.
What parallel do I see with the words of the apostles, to obey God rather than men? To whom did the apostles not want to submit? They did not want to obey Sanhedrin and the elders of the Jewish people. To the spiritual leaders of their own people and religion.
Did the members of Sanhedrin claim to be inspired by God? Did Sanhedrin claim not to be inspired by God? GB claims that they are not inspired, but that they must be obeyed.
Religious people, JW also, accept the claim that the Bible is inspired by God. And this fact (that the Word is inspired by God) provides in itself proof that people should accept God's guidelines and be obedient to that very Word.
On the other hand, we have the fact that GB is not inspired (according to their own claims). And that fact ("we are not inspired") provides the basis for what the apostles claimed, Not to obey (GB) people who are not inspired by God, because their “commandments” (doctrines) are not God’s, but human’s.
Was everything the Sanhedrin taught wrong and contrary to God’s Law and Word? I don't think we could say anything like that. But still, the Sanhedrin and many religious leaders, the elders, violated God’s law and God’s word in many things. Both in word and in spirit. That is why it was justified for the apostles to oppose it.
Today JWs have a Biblical precedent from the book of Acts, to oppose their religious leaders (GB and elders) for the same reasons and in the same way as it was in the 1st century.
Can Acts 5 be identified with Romans 13?
In Acts it is allowed to oppose spiritual authorities. The Epistle to the Romans calls for obedience to secular authorities with no alternative.
But whatever we personally decide, every choice carries good and bad consequences. Each of our choices will make us stronger or weaker, that we are winners or losers, happy or unhappy. “As long as we’re alive nothing is lost,” one man said.
 

You do know the account concerning this one scripture alone?  The apostles were preaching about Jesus Christ in the temple courts.  The Jewish high priest and the Sadducees, were filled with “jealousy”, because converts were being made.  They had them put in the public prison. This account has nothing to do with the “secular authorities”.  It has everything to do with God’s people of the day, and it still does, with God’s spiritual “Israel” today. 
Who acts like a “high priest” in the organization, replacing Jesus Christ as Head and high priest?  Your governing body.  They are jealous tyrants who refuse any confrontation, any questioning of their teachings and pseudo authority. 
In the congregation of JWs, where the temple in the anointed is found, (1 Pet 2:5,9; 1 Cor 3:16,17)  anointed ones who…
#1 Preach Jesus Christ as their only Head instead of a wicked slave and a “Gentile” elder body who lord it over them (Luke 22:24-27; Rev 9:3-5; Rev 13:1,2,5-7)…
#2 Reject an organization (since the authentic organization is the anointed Body of Christ) (1 Cor 12:14; Eph 2:20:22;1 Cor 14:40)…
#3Reject changes in God’s “set times and laws” – 1914 and all other dates as well as doctrine that changes as shifting shadows…(Dan 7:25; 2 Thess 2:1-4; James 1:17)…
#Obey God as ruler, rather than men…
..are brought before a judicial committee and disfellowshipped – all for following the teachings of Christ and using the example of the apostles, which is to obey God as ruler, rather than men. 
You would think that your governing body would listen to anyone, especially the anointed who preach about Jesus, but this isn’t the case.  God’s anointed people are to be submissive to another headship and other decrees – the GB’s decrees. (Matt 24:24)
 “If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves.” Gal 6:3
 “Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.”  Rom 10:3,4
If ANY JW truly loves God and Christ, that person would discern, that Wt’s leadership has transgressed the fulfillment of the law in Christ – adding to, and expecting obedience to, THEIR word – the word of men not inspired by Holy Spirit.
The Wt’s leadership is destructive ,and the primary obstacle to eternal life that JWs are facing.  It isn’t the governmental authorities in the world that should concern any of you.  (Rev 18:4-8)
 
 
 

"Alternative service" in East Europe for JW's who refused go to military service.
If my memories serving me well, I heard that in Czechoslovakia (info from native bro and sis in Bratislava in the mid of 1980) they tell me how you can choose between going to prison for few years (and perhaps again if you refuse service after prison time) or going working to mine under contract, and have normal working time as all other civil person who are mine worker, going to home after work and so. Perhaps long life contract.
So, this "problem" in South Korea is just "piece of cake" :)))

Separation between religious and political things and decisions in Old Israel.

Sorry, you are wrong about premise that I am discriminator. Simply, i was raised from my childhood as part of JW Church and spend cca half of my life (it depend how long i will live ;)) ) as member of WTJWorg, and as such i can't speak in this way about Catholics or Adventists etc.   
Paul and Caesar example you brought is interesting. And it is different of what we have today as "politic" of WTJWorg and State Courts. As i can see, Paul preaching caused trouble to him. He made some activity in Temple and spoke about "new light" and against established priesthood. Reaction of people and establishment was expected. What he done? He tell few things that average JW's today will not tell as evidence for defending nor in every day life.
First thing. Paul said: I am a Roman! (Roman citizen), and by that identified self in a way that JW today not see themselves as important or even separated from this world who put nationality and nationalism as important (i am German, American, British etc). Paul done exactly opposite of JW members are thought today, to not put national belongings in first place. JW have to be neutral in such matters. They are "global citizens" not belong to any particular nation, but belong to New World Nation.
Second thing Paul done is his calling on his Higher Educational Level and belonging to Higher Class of Israel Society. He said, I am Pharisee!  Imagine, he openly said he is part of blamed group. Will JW today say,  Your Honor, I am professor (not janitor, so my words are important) and I am (ex) member of Catholic Priesthood.
Third thing.  Secular Courts don't want today to be involved in church theology and questions of church doctrines. And WTJWorg Lawyers using this very much and very good (in USA call for 1st Amendment, i guess). Well, Paul done opposite. He wanted  secular Judge to make decisions about religious questions. ;))  
Fourth thing. Paul didn't want go to Jerusalem Elders for jurisdiction process, but to secular, pagan Roman courts. Amazing. JW's today are instructed that all religious and even some secular questions need to be presented before Elders and GB Administration. And how it is shameful if they bring brother before "unbelievers". 
Please tell me, where and when we live today, and how Paul is role model for JW members in this matters?
 

Sorry, you are wrong about premise that I am discriminator. Simply, i was raised from my childhood as part of JW Church and spend cca half of my life (it depend how long i will live ;)) ) as member of WTJWorg, and as such i can't speak in this way about Catholics or Adventists etc.   
Paul and Caesar example you brought is interesting. And it is different of what we have today as "politic" of WTJWorg and State Courts. As i can see, Paul preaching caused trouble to him. He made some activity in Temple and spoke about "new light" and against established priesthood. Reaction of people and establishment was expected. What he done? He tell few things that average JW's today will not tell as evidence for defending nor in every day life.
First thing. Paul said: I am a Roman! (Roman citizen), and by that identified self in a way that JW today not see themselves as important or even separated from this world who put nationality and nationalism as important (i am German, American, British etc). Paul done exactly opposite of JW members are thought today, to not put national belongings in first place. JW have to be neutral in such matters. They are "global citizens" not belong to any particular nation, but belong to New World Nation.
Second thing Paul done is his calling on his Higher Educational Level and belonging to Higher Class of Israel Society. He said, I am Pharisee!  Imagine, he openly said he is part of blamed group. Will JW today say,  Your Honor, I am professor (not janitor, so my words are important) and I am (ex) member of Catholic Priesthood.
Third thing.  Secular Courts don't want today to be involved in church theology and questions of church doctrines. And WTJWorg Lawyers using this very much and very good (in USA call for 1st Amendment, i guess). Well, Paul done opposite. He wanted  secular Judge to make decisions about religious questions. ;))  
Fourth thing. Paul didn't want go to Jerusalem Elders for jurisdiction process, but to secular, pagan Roman courts. Amazing. JW's today are instructed that all religious and even some secular questions need to be presented before Elders and GB Administration. And how it is shameful if they bring brother before "unbelievers". 
Please tell me, where and when we live today, and how Paul is role model for JW members in this matters?
 

I'm guess cleaning toilets was below him?
 

Separation between religious and political things and decisions in Old Israel.

I think @Srecko Sostar means who does one give 'service' to.  The Kings were supposed to represent God but at times they were disobedient. So then did a person serve the king, or disobey the king and serve God.  The answer of course  should be to serve God. But what of those men that helped David commit murder ? 
 

What do you think about "separation" in Old Israel Theocratic State, in time of Saul, David, Solomon and others? Who obey and how - God JHVH vs Kings?

I guess how people will be in conflict about "give God and give Cesar", because this are Two Masters you have to please :)) and Bible is very clear with command to JW members; obey, be in subjection to secular government :))

Whoa! It’s like hearing that the king of the north is now Bolivia!

Thanks to God JHVH, because he allowed "secular governments" and "secular people", who opposed the Nazi invasion with full force and enabled today’s freedom, even for those who refused to contribute to the Allied struggle, to win in that battles. 
Since the JW's believe that "gentile time" is over in 1914, do you think the YHVH intervened in historical events of 1941 and helped the "Allies" to overcome the "Axis Powers"? Because, under Hitler, WTJWorg could not serve God and preach and have congresses and other stuffs, so to speak. So, YHVH had an interest in one side winning and the other side losing, right? Can you prove that YHVH did not interfere in earthly conflicts od WWII, precisely because of your doctrine of “gentile time” which teaches how God’s passivity lasted 2520 years and ended in 1914, and because he, supposedly, create Earthly Part of his Government in Spiritual Paradise of WTJWorg. 
 Nazi German was a real threat to JW's to completely exterminate them from Europe. So, God would lose his "witnesses." How could that not happen, maybe he sent Michael again to oppose some another "Prince of Persia"? :))

I guess how people will be in conflict about "give God and give Cesar", because this are Two Masters you have to please :)) and Bible is very clear with command to JW members; obey, be in subjection to secular government :))

Thanks to God JHVH, because he allowed "secular governments" and "secular people", who opposed the Nazi invasion with full force and enabled today’s freedom, even for those who refused to contribute to the Allied struggle, to win in that battles. 
Since the JW's believe that "gentile time" is over in 1914, do you think the YHVH intervened in historical events of 1941 and helped the "Allies" to overcome the "Axis Powers"? Because, under Hitler, WTJWorg could not serve God and preach and have congresses and other stuffs, so to speak. So, YHVH had an interest in one side winning and the other side losing, right? Can you prove that YHVH did not interfere in earthly conflicts od WWII, precisely because of your doctrine of “gentile time” which teaches how God’s passivity lasted 2520 years and ended in 1914, and because he, supposedly, create Earthly Part of his Government in Spiritual Paradise of WTJWorg. 
 Nazi German was a real threat to JW's to completely exterminate them from Europe. So, God would lose his "witnesses." How could that not happen, maybe he sent Michael again to oppose some another "Prince of Persia"? :))

As usual CC spouts rubbish or has no understanding of English. 
I said nothing about Jesus being called into 'service', nothing at all. I said Jesus was killed for serving God. 
And it is JWs that serve men. That was proven in WW2 when JWs were not allowed to have their own Christian conscience. They were not allowed to work on farms or elsewhere, JWs had to go to prison or be murdered just for the sake of the JW Leaders that deliberately misused scripture about the Superior Authorities.
As for the 'UK Human Rights Committee', I do not care about them. They are only 'men'. 
As for TTH, he always tends to think a person is not a 'real' JW if said person does something that he does not agree with. So be it. Is this person a real JW, who knows ?  I hope it doesn't have 'Branch support' as it could cause a lot of problems for people, as with misuse of the Romans scripture in WW2. 

"In 2000, Taiwan implemented an alternative civilian service program that allows conscientious objectors to fulfill their obligation to perform national service without violating their conscience. Under this arrangement, those who conscientiously object to military service have been given the option to work in hospitals, in nursing homes, and in other areas of the public sector." - quote from link you provide.
"In particular, the petitioner insisted that two clauses of the law, which require 36 months of in-camp service twice the active-duty service duration of 18 months, run counter to the Constitution, due to their punitive nature." - quote from link 4Yah2me provide.
First, how much time last civilian service in Taiwan? And second, as we see, the place where the replacement service is performed is very different and it seems that working at local correctional facilities is "uncomfortable", to petitioner,  compared to what is offered in Taiwan.
Third, GB WTJWorg are not willing to agree to any kind of "civil service". In the past they objected to the jurisdiction (who is in charge) of the civil service, and similar.  GB can be picky. :)))

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210127003800315?section=national/defense
SEOUL, Jan. 27 (Yonhap) -- A conscientious objector, now carrying out his alternative military service as a prison staff member under the current law after refusing to enlist for religious reasons, has filed a constitutional appeal contending that the alternative military service law is unconstitutional due to its punitive nature, judicial officials said Wednesday.
By law, all able-bodied South Korean men must carry out military service for 18 to 22 months. But the National Assembly passed the Act on the Assignment and Performance of the Alternative Service in 2019, allowing conscientious objectors who refuse to take up arms for religious reasons to do 36 months of alternative service at local correctional facilities.
According to the officials, the conscientious objector, who began his alternative military service at a local prison last year, filed the petition with the Constitutional Court on Monday, saying that the alternative service act violates the freedom of conscience and the rights to happiness and equality. In particular, the petitioner insisted that two clauses of the law, which require 36 months of in-camp service twice the active-duty service duration of 18 months, run counter to the Constitution, due to their punitive nature.
It is the first time that a constitutional petition has been filed in relation to the alternative service law.
The petitioner has been known as a believer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who was recognized by the Supreme Court as a conscientious objector last year.
Discussions on the alternative military service began after the Constitutional Court, while upholding the criminalization of conscientious objection, ruled in June 2018 that not allowing alternative measures for military service objectors does not conform to the Constitution.
Following the parliamentary passage of the alternative service law in December 2019, the first batch of 63 men began their assignments at local detention facilities, such as serving and cooking meals and supporting facility management, in October last year.
Conscientious objectors in South Korea have long drawn a heated debate as to whether their claims for the right to refuse to perform military service should be tolerated in a country where national security remains an important issue amid tension with North Korea.
Jesus and some of his closest followers were murdered for serving God, but these people are now complaing about doing 3 years confined service instead of taking up arms.  They are breaking the Law of the land, so should be happy that they are offered the chance to do work that does not go against their conscience. Do they really expect to live a happy and peaceful life in Satan's old world ?  So say, 'serving God' in opposition to Satan, what do they really expect ?  Where is thier FAITH ?

“Don’t let others spoil your faith and joy with their philosophies, their wrong and shallow answers built on men’s thoughts and ideas, instead of on what Christ has said.” Col 2:8 (Living Bible)
I am sure any past and present JW can come up with just one doctrine that the organization’s leaders had to change their ‘idea’ on, which change is called, “new light”. The list of “clarified” beliefs is extensive. We should remember that nothing that begins in spiritual darkness, can submit to clarification; which is the act of providing more detail to the original statement. If we were to check over the list, we would see the doctrines are not refined to emit progressive spiritual “light” from Jesus Christ, but they are traded out with more lies – more thoughts and delusions stemming from the dark minds of governing leaders. (Isa 5:20; Micah 3:6) 
This list reveals JWs “stronghold”; teachings that were the cornerstone of their faith when in their heyday, and what JWs relied on to preach, year after year. They proved to be wrong, without having source in the chief cornerstone, Jesus Christ…without having source in the Holy Spirit. (Matt 7:24-27;24:22) This is the most dangerous stronghold that we may allow to overcome us. (Isa 28:7,8,15,18) It affects our spirituality, our prospect of eternal life. Sadly, to fall for such a spiritual refuge requires our whole being; physical, emotional, and spiritual self, to be totally on board with its captive theme and calling. (Ps 9:15; 2 Thess 5:3; 2 Cor 11:3,4) 
The apostles walked in the footsteps of Christ, speaking his truths, while tearing down worthless ideas of men that contradicted the Word of God. (Zech 8:16; Eph 4:25; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2,3; 2 Tim 3:1,5,7,8) 
On the second part of the annual meeting, a Branch member’s wife was interviewed. She mentioned that JWs are at spiritual war, with the focus on advancing pure worship and “primary joy” in God. Spiritual war is raging…against a stronghold of lies. (John 8:44; 2 Cor 4:4; 1 Tim 4:1; 6:12) 
Pure worship to be given to God is only possible when one acknowledges and teaches steadfast truth, and not human concepts that ultimately will “spoil your faith and joy” as Col 2:8 states. This spiritual decision-making war began in Genesis and continued down through the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Now, it is reaching its culmination. (Gen 3:15; Deut 30:15-20; Heb 2:14; 1 John 2:14; Eph 6:16; Rev 12:11,13,15,17; Joel 3:14; Rev 16:13-16) 
“It is true that I am an ordinary, weak human being, but I don’t use human plans and methods to win my battles. 4 I use God’s mighty weapons, not those made by men, to knock down the devil’s strongholds. 5 These weapons can break down every proud argument against God and every wall that can be built to keep men from finding him. With these weapons I can capture rebels and bring them back to God and change them into men whose hearts’ desire is obedience to Christ.” 2 Cor 10:3-5
“But to do this, you will need the strong belt of truth and the breastplate of God’s approval. In every battle you will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery arrows aimed at you by Satan. And you will need the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit—which is the Word of God.” Eph 6:14,16,17
A farmer cultivates and sows a field in straight rows, and on good ground that produces an abundant crop. Jesus said the “seed” that we are to sow is reliable truth, in the real sense of the word – the Word of God. It is never discarded. (Mark 4:14-20) Truth can only be found in Christ; and in those anointed teachers who remain in him. (Matt 7:15-19; John 15:5,7,8,16; 13:20; 1 John 3:24; 2 John 1:9) 
Using this illustration, the organization’s packet of "purchased" seeds sown since day one, were never viable, as living truth. (Luke 4:5-7; 2 Cor 11:13-15) What little truth may have been evident, was eventually replaced with men’s ideas. (2 Pet 2:1-3) 
There is no life in teachings that are constantly shifted and chucked aside for new thoughts and philosophies. (Mark 4:14; John 15:1-4,15; Matt 7:15-20) There is no clear straight path of progressive light ahead when a leader grapples with revamping an old doctrine, to save his livelihood provided through an earthly organization. (Phil 3:19; Jude 1:12,13)
“In the past, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 when World War I started. We thought that Jehovah “cut short” those days in 1918 when the war ended so that the remaining anointed ones on earth could preach the good news to all nations. (Matt 24:21,22) After that preaching work would be completed, we expected that Satan’s world would be destroyed. So we thought that there were three parts to the great tribulation. It would begin in 1914, it would be interrupted in 1918, and it would finish at Armageddon.” W 13/7/15 p. 13,14
“Like a madman who throws flaming darts and deadly arrows,
so is the person who deceives his neighbor
and says, “I was only joking!” Prov 26:18,19
That article goes on with more thoughts and expectations that JWs believed and taught (sown) as truths. We can easily say that the organization’s leaders did not sow straight rows or a path leading others to the teaching of Jesus Christ. (Prov 10:9; 4:14; 3:5,6; Ps 16:11; Isa 30:21; Luke 3:4-6; John 14:6) 
They led' and are still leading their captive ones with crooked, empty teachings spoken from the heart; all, while building not only their earthly treasures with human slavery, but reinforcing their stronghold of lies. (Ps 12:2-4;41:6; Jer 7:8;Ezek 13:10; Matt 15:19; John 8:44; Matt 6:19,20,24; Rom 6:16; Rev 13:10) 
“Yet those other men keep telling you how wonderful they are, so here I go: You think you are so wise—yet you listen gladly to those fools; you don’t mind at all when they make you their slaves and take everything you have, and take advantage of you, and put on airs, and slap you in the face.” 2 Cor 11:18-20
“Don’t be misled; remember that you can’t ignore God and get away with it: a man will always reap just the kind of crop he sows! If he sows to please his own wrong desires, he will be planting seeds of evil and he will surely reap a harvest of spiritual decay and death; but if he plants the good things of the Spirit, he will reap the everlasting life that the Holy Spirit gives him.” Gal 6:7,8
The organization’s “clarified” beliefs is a list of wrong thoughts, ideas and desires of men; with not one glimmer of spiritual light leading to life in Christ. (Jer 14:14; Ps 97:11; John 6:63; 12:46; 2 Cor 6:14) 
None of us, especially the anointed priests who have the obligation to give God pure worship through their “sacrifices of praise”, (Ps 4:5; 1 Pet 2:5,9; Heb 13:15) should allow the hollow delusions of men and their dominating influence, lead us away from worshiping the Father in spirit and truth. (Prov 12:22; Ps 5:9; 4:5; John 4:23,24) 
The woman interviewed, also said that God’s sovereignty was first and foremost in importance for her. Will any heart that cultivates lies, be worthy of service in the Kingdom of God? (Ps 5:4; Rev 19:8; 21:8) 
Someone said, “sovereignty” can be summed up in two words, “who rules?”. Who rules over us, if we choose the decrees and doctrine of men, over the decrees of God fulfilled in Christ? (Ps 119:130; 1:1,2; 4:2; Matt 15:9; 23:13; Mark 7:8; 1 Thess 2:13) 
Why did Jesus compare our being a useful servant of God's sovereignty, to a farmer ...plowing the ground for the planting of seed?
This comparison within the Bible, is not new. The Bible compares the Word of God, to seed (Luke 8:11).
It compares the spiritual fertility of our heart, to soil (Luke 8:15; Hos 10:12; 6:3; Isa 44:3; 45:8; 2 Cor 9:10; Jer 4:3; Luke 8:14; 1 Cor 3:6; Eph 3:16,17)
From those verses we see, that the purpose of symbolic rain from heaven [living waters (Rev 22:1; John 4:10,14)], is to nurture our growth in righteousness, sanctification, and holiness, by the blessing of God's spirit. We too must supplement God's blessing, by contributing a plowed heart... soil that is softened to accept God's Laws (Heb 10:16) and the life they impart (Rom 8:11,2; Gal 6:8; Prov 6:20-23).
We must strive for progressive understanding... nurturing our growth in the knowledge of God within us (John 6:27; Phil 1:9)  
Pearl Doxsey - "Don't Look Back"
 
The JW ended her interview by saying she had gained peace and confidence in “the decisions this organization makes through the governing body”. She then said, it is “easier to be supportive, and listen, obey and be blessed”.
Sadly, this woman and all JWs who support their leadership, are taking part in the spiritual battle against Truth in Jesus Christ. (Rev 12:7; 18:4) Her stronghold is not in God alone and His Word, His laws in Jesus Christ. JWs rely on men and their ideas to lead them, as the Pharisees expected of the early Jews. (Mark 7:6-8; Matt 23:27,28,15) 
By submitting to the rebellious words of men over the Word of Christ, the anointed priestly “kings of the earth”  (Rev 1:5) and those in their company, have blindly rejected the sovereignty of the One they assume they uphold.
Their refuge is the organization, while the yoke they have accepted, is in the deceitful scheme founded on a lie – a stronghold that will be brought down, in the light of God’s Truth. (Zech 4:7-9; Ezek 13:13-16; 2 Thess 2:9-12; Rev 13:4,7,8;8:8; 19:20; 20:10; Jer 23:29) (Ps 19:1-7; Matt 14:62; 24:27,30; John 8:12; Heb 12:1; Rev 22:17)
 
“Why do the nations rebel
and the people plot (“ponder, imagine, mutter”) a vain (“worthless or empty”) thing?
2 The kings of the earth take their stand,
and the rulers conspire together
against the Lord and His Anointed One:
3 “Let us tear off their chains
and free ourselves from their restraints.”
4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord ridicules them.
5 Then He speaks to them in His anger
and terrifies them in His wrath:
6 “I have consecrated My King
on Zion, My holy mountain.”
7 I will declare the Lord’s decree:
He said to Me, “You are My Son;
today I have become Your Father.
8 Ask of Me,
and I will make the nations Your inheritance
and the ends of the earth Your possession.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron;
You will shatter them like pottery.”
10 So now, kings, be wise;
receive instruction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with reverential awe
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Pay homage to the Son or He will be angry
and you will perish in your rebellion,
for His anger may ignite at any moment.
All those who take refuge in Him are blessed.” Ps 2:1-12
 
 
https://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/
Who are the "Kings of the Earth"? 
“Lightning” – “From East to West”
"Armageddon"
 
 
 

It was an Apple, but with extremely limited memory. Just one byte and then everything crashed.

The best explanation of what Furuli had tried to do was explained by COJ, even before COJ's explanation was confirmed by Hermann Hunger, the acknowledged expert in the field. I will include some additional context from COJ because it also helps explain why Furuli was so mixed-up in trying to promote the forgery idea: http://kristenfrihet.se/kf2/review.htm
Finally, Furuli’s hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions “represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II,” and if it were true that “the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87,” which Furuli argues was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary.
 
Furuli’s hypothesis is simply untenable. The only reason for his suggesting it is the desperate need to get rid of a tablet that inexorably demolishes his “Oslo [= Watchtower] chronology” and firmly establishes the absolute chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE).
 
As discussed in chapter 4 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004), there are at least nine other astronomical tablets that perform the same service. Furuli’s futile attempts to undermine the enormous burden of evidence provided by these other astronomical tablets will be discussed in another, separate part of this review.
 
The question that remains to be discussed here is Furuli’s claim that the lunar positions that were observed in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and are recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 better than 568/567 BCE.
------
On the back cover of his new book Rolf Furuli states that the conclusion of his study is that “the lunar data on the tablet [VAT 4956] better fit 588 than 568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.” What about this claim?
 
A careful examination of all the legible lunar positions recorded on this astronomical “diary” proves that the claim is false. Almost none of the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE, while nearly all of them excellently correspond to lunar positions in the year 568/567 BCE.
 
The astronomy program used for this examination is Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 11.04, which uses the modern complete ELP2000-82B lunar theory. The “delta-T” value used for the secular acceleration of the Moon is 1.7 milliseconds per century, which is the result of the extensive research presented by F. Richard Stephenson in his Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, 1997). The program used, therefore, maintains high accuracy far into the past, which is not true of many other modern astronomy programs. 
 
About a year before Furuli’s book had been published in the autumn of 2007 I had examined his claim (which he had published officially in advance) and found that none of the lunar positions fit the year 588/587 BCE. I shared the first half of my results with some of my correspondents. I did not know at that time that Furuli not only moves the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37th year about one extra month forward in the Julian calendar, which actually makes it fall too late in that year. The reason for this is the following:
 
On the obverse, line 17, VAT 4956 states that on day 15 of month III (Simanu) there was a “lunar eclipse that was omitted.” The phrase refers to an eclipse that had been calculated in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon.
 
On page 126 Furuli explains that he has used this eclipse record as the “point of departure” for  mapping “the regnal years, the intercalary months, and the beginning of each month in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, both from the point of view that 568/67 and 588/87 B.C.E. represent his year 37.”
 
In the traditional date for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15th of month III, corresponds to July 4, 568 BCE. From that date we may count backward to the 1st of month III, which must have been June 20/21 (sunset to sunset), 568. As the tablet further shows that the preceding Month II (Ayyaru) had 29 days and Month I (Nisannu) 30 days, it is easy to figure out that the 1st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.
 
On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in Furuli’s alternative “Oslo Chronology” – we find that in this year, too, there was a lunar eclipse that could not be seen from the Babylonian horizon. It took place on July 15, 588 BCE. According to Furuli this is the eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1st of month I (Nisannu) to May 1. (In his discussions and/or calculations he is inconsistently alternating between May 1, May 2, and May 3).
 
There are a number of problems with Furuli’s dates. The first one is that the first day of the Babylonian year, Nisannu 1, never began as late as in May! As shown by the tables on pages 27-47 in R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology (Brown Univeristy Press, 1956), the 1st of Nisannu never once in the 700-year period covered (626 BCE – CE 75) began as late as in May. The same holds true of the subsequent months: the 1st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15th of month III cannot be that of July 15, 588 BCE! This eclipse must have fallen in the middle of month IV in the Babylonian calendar. Furuli’s “point of departure” for his “Oslo Chronology,” therefore, is quite clearly wrong.
 
Very interestingly, the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588 BCE was recorded by the Babylonians on another cuneiform tablet, BM 38462, No. 1420 in A. Sachs’ LBAT catalogue, and No. 6 in H. Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V (Wien, 2001). I discussed this tablet on pages 180-182 of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3rd ed. 1998, 4th ed. 2004). The chronological strength of this tablet is just as decisive as that of VAT 4956. It contains annual lunar eclipse reports dating from the 1st to at least the 29th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603 – 576/575 BCE). The preserved parts of the tablet contain as many as 37 records of eclipses, 22 of which were predicted, 14 observed, and one that is uncertain.
 
The entry containing the record of the July 15, 588 BCE eclipse (obverse, lines 16-18) is dated to year 17, not year 37, of Nebuchadnezzar! This entry reports two lunar eclipses in this year, one “omitted” and one observed. The first, “omitted” one, which refers to the eclipse of July 15, 588, is dated to month IV (Duzu), not to month III (Simanu). So it cannot be the eclipse dated to month III on VAT 4956. That this eclipse really is the one of July 15, 588 is confirmed by the detailed information given about the second, observed lunar eclipse, which is dated to month X (Tebetu) of year 17. The details about the time and the magnitude help to identify this eclipse beyond all reasonable doubts. The whole entry reads according to H. Hunger’s translation in ADT V, page 29:
 
“[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]
[Month] X, the 13th, morning watch, 1 beru 5o [before sunrise?]
All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed.”
 
The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?
 
My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”
 
Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.
 
In the examination below, the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 are tested both for 568/567 BCE as the generally accepted 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

So PM (Pekka Mansikka) recognizes that this eclipse was stated by the scribe to be not visible, and that scholars match it to July 4, 568. BCE, which is Simanu 15, 568 BCE.
Scholars generally believe that this lunar eclipse was predicted in advance, and now that the predicted time came, the Babylonian scribe stated that the eclipse was not visible. However, it could be uncertain whether the entry related to this lunar eclipse was written in real time in 568 BC. Why? Because then one would have to draw the conclusion that the aforementioned positions of the moon and planets are also written down in real time.
Wait! Almost all the lunar data on the tablet are a good match for 568. Except for the Nisanu 8/9 "typo" and a couple other difficult readings that PM doesn't mention. However, even Furuli admits that the planetary data is a good match for 568 (and not the 588 date he and the WTS would have hoped for). But PM says that because of a couple of minor typos, we can now imagine that there is uncertainty about the persons who were assigned to observe and write down their observations. PM wants us to believe that perhaps none of these were ever real-time observations. And why not? Because then we would have to accept that all of them were. (And we don't want that because it would be evidence that this tablet is actually for the year it says it is.)
Such a convoluted bit of circular reasoning! PM admits that there are obvious observations on the tablet. Even if they are as mundane as a sick fox getting into the city, or a wolf that gets in and kills a couple of dogs. He thinks these probably belong to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as claimed. But the lunar data and the planetary data on the same tablet keep pointing to 568 BCE, which is the same place all the other Neo-Babylonian archaeological data also points to. So how do we get rid of this evidence against the WTS theory? Simple. We are asked to assume that the perfectly good 568 data for a lunar eclipse might not have been checked for, simply because the observer knew it was predicted to be not visible anyway. Yet, we have absolutely no evidence that the observer decided not to check for this eclipse. So why do we decide that he didn't? Because then we would have to admit that the other lunar and planetary data had been observed. (And that would be devastating to the WTS theory about 607. )
But then PM goes right ahead and contradicts himself anyway, and says that the line actually refers to a lunar eclipse that was observed in 588. Furuli's book calls this the "point of departure." PM paraphrases that idea by calling it the "one 'small' exception."
This involves a very serious mistake. The inscription at the beginning of the clay tablet “the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule” is incorrect.The positions of the moon and planets in the starry sky described in this clay tablet were realized several years after the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. However, there is one, “small” exception to this. It has been estimated that this lunar eclipse would have taken place on 15 July 588 BC.6 In that case, it could be a real-time entry and would be part of the “historical data” listed earlier. However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May.
Of course, the confusion in PM's logic is directly inherited from the same confusion in Furuli. And there actually never was a predicted but unobserved eclipse in the third month of 588. Furuli tried hard to make one up by shifting the Babylonian calendar by one month. It was a clever plan because an unobserved eclipse will have no data associated with it, and should therefore be easier to "match" to any other unobserved eclipse. And all eclipses fall pretty much on the same day of the month, too, from the 13th through the 15th. So it was a good plan, but 588 did not have an eclipse in the third month. But it did have an eclipse in the 4th month. So all Furuli had to do was shift the Babylonian calendar to a place it had never been before, and say that the 4th month was actually the third month in 588.
Of course, Furuli got "caught" trying to start the year in May, which had never been evidenced in many centuries of astronomical data left to us by the Babylonians. Even PM has to admit above: "However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May."
Ann O'maly already pointed out the strange mix of honesty and dishonesty when the authors of the pro-WT-theory site called vat4956.com were confronted by this objection: (You can see the page at VAT 4956 - Can be dated 20 years earlier to 588 BC instead of 568 BC)
Common counter-arguments for the year 588 BC
A Babylonian year never started as late as May
Not according to Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein in Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. – A.D. 45. The latest a year starts during this period according to them is April 26th, just 7 days earlier than May 2nd.
To me this is a not-so-cleverly dishonest way possible of wording this, because they pretend that an authority agrees with them, and then when they quote the authority, you have to be careful to note that the authority disagrees with them. They realize that most of their readers who will believe them have a bias that would allow them to miss the dishonesty out of one side of their mouth, while admitting the authority disagrees with them out of the other side.
There was another snag in Furuli's theory that this other 588 eclipse was NEB37. Another tablet that I already tested (in another topic, LBAT 1420) lists the same unobserved eclipse, except that it names it for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, 20 years earlier, just where we would expected it based on the archaeology. But, to make things worse for Furuli and PM, that tablet also had an observed eclipse in the same year. That provides even more sure evidence that Furuli's attempt was impossible and short-sighted.