Can circular reasoning still be true?

The conclusion of "circular reasoning" *could* be true -- it's just that it can't be established as true *by* circular reasoning. The "truth" of the conclusion would have to be established by other means or evidence.

In the case of the bible being the "word of god," there is no other evidence showing that to be the case; so while "circular reasoning" only establishes that the conclusion can't be shown true by the reasoning used, there's also no other way to establish the claim that the bible is the "word of god."

"Begging the Question" (petitio principii) or circular reasoning is a falicy in logic and self-contradictory.

The problem is one of interpretation and allegory and metaphor and analogy. Which certain members of Christiandom fall upon when discussing the Bible.

Christians have confirmation outside the circle

the Author dwells within us

He is not interested in confirming things to scoffers....but God has revealed the truth to them none the less

Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

"We know that God is from the Bible" . . . . ?!

Did you really mean to say that?

I think circular reasoning can still be true.

example:

I like salt in my food therefore I like to put salt in my food because I like salt in my food . . . etc

It CAN be, for the wrong reason.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

It could be true, but not because of that reasoning.

The conclusion can still be valid, but that argument in itself is not valid.

It can still be true. It just doesn't add anything to the debate.