Merely claiming that something is circular reasoning does not make it so. What you have described as "circular reasoning" would only be so if all relevant portions of the Bible were written at the same time. In other words If a group of people in the first century wrote the entire Hebrew portion of the Bible in order to fit the facts and events of Jesus' life, then that would be circular reasoning. However we have manuscripts today which are dated from before the time of Christ which contains prophesies about him which he would have no control over him, such as the town where he was born, that his family would have to flee to Egypt and be called back from there and that he would be known as growing up in another specific town, are all things which are not circular. Using one portion of the Bible to support another is linear if the portion containing the prophecy is older than the portion which records the fulfillment of that prophecy. Apparently your prejudice has clouded the difference between linear and circular, or perhaps I am mistaken and you can explain it to me by quoting a definition and proving this by examples from the Bible to show how it is one, and can not be the other. Here is a definition I found:
http://ksuweb.kennesaw.edu/~shagin/logfal-pbc-circular.htm
" DEFINITIONCircular Reasoning - supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles."
This last point seems to address the "my dear ols grand pa" line of argument. No doubt this is true in most cases since I for one often meet people who have a strong belief based on emotional considerations rather than because it is something which they can explain, much less prove. However, in saying this, I have in mind both people who believe in Creation or Evolution.It just depends on which authority and viewpoint makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, or maybe which one you are the most prejudiced against. How many people question either viewpoint if that is what they want to believe? If the scientist is your "dear old grand pa" and he tells you that the chalk cliffs of Dover are 2.5 million years old do you ask him what proff he has for that date, or if he is just using "circular reasoning" i.e. "since evolution is true and I assume it happened over a long time" then this is my guess, but I'm not going to let you know that it is a guess.
On the other hand if your "dear old grand pa" is a hell fire preacher and he tell you that if you don't do as he says you will live forever i a firery torment do you study the Bible to see if it is true? (There is no such thing-the Bile says that the dead are unconscious.)
There are a few things in your original post where you are mistaken about what the Bible says. One example of this is that Jesus did not take his physical body to heaven with him; to do so would have been to take back his sacrifice, and if he had been resurrected in the same body as he had before that his close disciples would have recognized him, but they didn't except at his last appearance. For a detailed explanation of the evidence on this last point here is a link:
http://groups.msn.com/evolutioncreationismandtheBible/...
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of very long URL, to restore page width to normal.
™ Version 4.2
