luvroftheword, a common misconception in logic is that of circular reasoning in all logic. this is not so. a syllogism for example builds off the implicide things contained within a statement or propisition. a circular argument is one in which the conclusion is assumed true in your first statement and then from there you attempt to prove it to be true an example of the two:

syllogism:
1. all men are mortal
2. presedant bush is a man
3. therefore bush is mortal
notice that are first statement was not bush is mortal and are conclusion was bush is mortal. we moved from one idea logically into a conclusion about another. we could have started with bush is mortal, all men are mortal, therefore bush is a man. thats fine two your conclusion is different from you premises

circular:
1. the bible is the word of God and without error
2. the bible says its the word of God
3. therefore it is the word of God
here the first premise is our conclusion. the conclusion must always be establishing a different but related truth than whats assumed.

__________________
james wright
covenant presbyterian church( opc)
abilene TX