I would submit that the Bible is not a "whole book," at least not in the way that the JW's claim it is. Certainly there is no common theme or common author. (...nicht im Sinne von Mein Kampf...)
All "Bibles," including the sixty-six book Protestant compilation are (very) loosely organized anthologies, spanning languages, centuries, cultures and a variety of theological outlooks.
As a simple example, consider the disagreement that rages between Paul and James (Two characters that we're pretty sure today were actually real ) throughout much of the NT.
Eusebius, quoting Hegesippus tells us that James the Just (The half-brother of Jesus in JW parlance) was a life-long Nazarite, who did not cut his hair or eat meat.
Paul claims that a man who eats only vegetables on account of his conscience is "weak" and that long hair is a disgrace on a man.
I doubt very much if the example he had in mind here was purely hypothetical.
Paul compares the Christian course to a race, which at the time (i.e. The Greek Games) was an event where the uncircumcised contestants competed in the nude. As such, the illustration is a thinly disguised insult aimed directly at James and the circumcision faction.
Or consider how the Epistle of James is practically a rebuttal of the Epistle to the Galatians. The contradictions are (IMO) irreconcilable.
The true value of the Bible is that it's one of the best preserved collections of ancient literature in existence. Holding one of its authors responsible for the views of another is an artificial dilemma.