The point where I begin having a problem is when a religious person casts that "rule" aside when it becomes inconvenient..
So it seems to you, professor because our leaders are not being a “smartass” about it when they are coxing our organization. The honesty and consistency in representation and in interpretation is to God’s word even when scientific evidence points in another direction: Such as Jehovah taking credit for predatory design in Job. But is it conclusive therefore, that predation was God’s intended purpose from the beginning as you conclude? vis-à-vis “Jehovah is a manly person of war”, humans having the potential to kill and prey and destroy, the angels and Jesus’s warrior capacity. Was that Jehovah’s intended purpose from the beginning? Therefore, JW consider other variables than scientific findings as I pointed out in my previous post, without casting out the standard when it seems in the Bible that Job contradicts Eden. That is what the Bible says. JW is not the source of what the Bible says and the scriptures cannot be nullified. I kindly pointed out previously Dr., that the stories are given to us, those are all the pieces of the puzzle given to us, that’s how they fit, and that’s how we see the picture when we try to apply the rule of all scriptures is inspired— which simply means all scriptures are consistent even if they seem to contradict each other or even if they seem to contradict with science. That is what the Bible claims and that is the standard JW consistently try to apply the best they can.
JW literature in often wrong on matters of basic science.
Seemingly. The WT article you quote goes against science. In this case, all bets are off when WT tries to scientifically explain the miraculous conception of Jesus, God providing the promised seed with its genetics.
Take for example evidence presented at trial. Some evidence is not that heavy. And right or wrong does not affect the substance of the weightier evidence.