Vidiot and prologos bring up good points.
The Watchtower religion is good at creating paradoxes due to what is often termed as "radical Sola Scriptura." As most of you know, "Sola Scriptura" in its most elementary form is citing Scripture as the final authority regarding the definition of Christian dogma. It recognizes that Christian doctrine arose simultaneously with the writing of the Scriptures and, because of this understands that even primary doctrine is not often defined in dogmatic or explicit terms in Scripture as a result; however it appeals to Scripture as having the final say in defining how such doctrine should be shaped, explained, and employed. The "radical" form sees Scripture as the basis for religion, not solely as its interpreter.
The "radical Sola Scriptura" employed by the Jehovah's Witnesses is actually a product of the Second Great Awakening, the religious revival movement in North America of the 19th century. What are termed by religious academics as "new religious movements" or NRMs were often founded by lay persons of other Christian traditions or even those who were only "nominally Christian" until having some sort of emotional experience during this revival period or some time thereafter.
Moving forward on little more but the emotional experience brought on by the revival or their own personal reawakening, these persons, well-intended as they might have been, went forward without academic training in religion, Scripture, theology, and generally without formal training in anything like professional clergy were. Some were absent of even the basic training from religious instruction such as was offered in basic catechism classes or even Sunday school attendance. Where taught to distrust and even despise the clergy, some of these religious founders even went so far as to purposely avoid formal education.
From these came the likes of Joseph Smith (founder of the LDS movement) and Charles Taze Russell. Both shared a common misunderstanding that was often found among the uneducated in North America, generally that the Bible itself was the ultimate and final revelation from God. This was contrary to the dogma in Christianity that the person, Jesus of Nazareth as Christ, was himself the ultimate source of revelation from God. (For Jews this has been the Great Theophany at Mount Sinai and other smaller personal theophanies of the patriarchs.) Scripture was a written testament to these religious traditions, a part of the deposit of faith, but never the source of their systems, let alone the founding ingredient to religion or doctrine itself.
Mistaking "Sola Scriptura" as the belief that the written word of God was the first and final form of revelation from God, religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses grew popular among the NRMs. Offering an interpretation limited to the pages of Scripture, new and often radical interpretations came forth. Free from the historical and traditional understanding that shaped them, the Biblical texts became "proof texts" for odd and often very hard-to-sustain doctrines, often in need of constant revision. (Joseph Smith went one step further and "discovered" a new text that was "added" to the ultimate authority of written testimony.)
Dropping Christianity's traditional dogma from the picture, one cannot make sense of the texts regarding the Temptation of Christ, the Roman epistle's call to obedience to world authorities, and Johannine texts that describe the "world" as both being under Satan's control yet "so loved" that Christ died for it.
Obviously the original authors and the Church authorities that formally canonized these texts never imagined that the same Scriptures would be read free from an understanding of basic Christian doctrine. Yet the Watchtower brand of religion demands such a reading, and because of this one is left with a conflicting picture that cannot be reconciled in the vacuum in which such a theology resides.