It’s here.

Biblical subsistence argument (Formulated it) vs
Biblical circular Reasoning.

A thread (a long one but worth it if you read through)

Not so long ago, I was on Amazon reading the review of one of the books of seasoned Christian apologist, Prof. William Lane Craig. Satisfied with the reviews I scrolled further only to bump into a disgruntled Athiest’s review, repudiating the book chapter by chapter (imagine?)...

While reading his refute, I came across a claim often made by skeptics,

“You don’t defend the Bible with the Bible, that’s simply CIRCULAR REASONING.”

In another Instance, while discussing the messianic concept with a skeptic on Twitter, he made the near-exact claim.

Now the thing is, the 21st century Bible critic, more often than not, does not approach the Bible from a neutral standpoint. Sometimes, it’s not because it’s an intentional act but most their (insufficient) knowledge is derived from secular/Athiestic books, articles..

Philosophy e.t.c . Now because most of these sources criticize the Bible, it constricts the scope with which the skeptic inquires the Bible, causing a serious misunderstanding on the part of the unknowing skeptic. When one then views the OT practices and link it with secondary..

Sources( most of which are biased) the verdict then is An all-loving, benevolent God who cannot be reconciled with the “atrocities” in the Bible. Therefore the Bible can’t be true, Christians are deluded by it and Christianity is incompatible with post-modern thinking.

therefore, Christianity is obsolete and disillusioned with the 21st century.

Now objectively speaking, that’s just a terrible bias seeing as the skeptic really just made postulations based on a limited number of sources.

• DEBUNKING THE CLAIM
So according to the above assessment, one cannot defend such a faulty book with the same faulty book seeing as that would be circular logic and and secondarily, doing so would further lead to faulty conclusions.
But how so??
Why, that’s grossly subjective

Circular logic is a fallacy where the conclusion of a claim only leads back to its premises. For instance, i ask a friend “why are you a doctor ?” He replies
“Because I studied medicine.” Not satisfied, i inquire “why did you study medicine ?” He responds with finality
“Because

I want to be a doctor.”
Now that’s circular logic because the conclusion led us back to the premises; he was basically saying “I’m a doctor coz I’m a doctor.”
Now while I agree,logically, that saying “the Bible is true because it’s the word of God and it’s the word of God becau.

se it’s true.” Is circular reasoning, if we go beyond that statement and give with proper detail why that is true, the circular logic does not even apply. That’s because how the Bible is structured.
The etymology for the word Bible is the Greek word “Biblia” which means “BOOKS”