Jimmy Stephens has helpful advice when discussing Revelational Epistemology and circularity:

It depends on what is meant by “circularity.” Normally, we treat logical circularity as fallacious, for one reason or another. Logical or inferential circularity is where you repeat a premise as its own conclusion in an argument. But not only have I not repeated any premises that way, I haven’t made a formalizable argument at all.

We could expand our definition of “argument” to include the procedural appeal I’m making, but then our definition of “bad-circularity” would apply to a lot less.

For clarity here’s an example:
P1. All testimonies of God are trustworthy.
P2. The Bible is a testimony of God.
C: The Bible is trustworthy.

This argument thinly veils a hidden premise:

P. If C, P2.

So the argument goes that because the Bible is the word of God it’s trustworthy, and because it’s trustworthy, it’s the word of God. We’ve moved in a logical circle.

It’s inaccurate to say that’s what I’m doing. I’m not offering a train of inference at all. I’m saying, “The proof is in the pudding,” so to speak. Reading the Bible – not arguments about it – is the sufficient means of knowing that it’s God’s word.

Why do I claim not to know God despite having read the Bible multiple times?

Think about what you’re asking. You’re asking what epistemological factors explain our different beliefs. But we do not agree about the available epistemological factors.

Are you asking, “Why on your worldview do I not believe?” Or are you asking, “Why on mine?” I don’t know the latter answer, which is why I began this conversation by asking it. What do you believe is the reason why you do not believe it?

For more helpful materials:

https://spirited-tech.com/2017/12/12/knowledge-of-god/

https://spirited-tech.com/2017/07/26/circular-reasoning-and-circular-arguments/