Is biblical literalism coherent?

I come from a history of atheism. To me, for a long time, bibilical literalism has seemed to be invalid-- maybe just weak?-- because of circularity. We know that God, as conceptualized by Christians, exists and doesn't lie because the bible says so; we know that the bible is true, because God writes it; we know that God writes the bible, because the bible says so. And so on and so forth.

In my old age, I've softened on my atheism, in part, because I'm stuck in the [Muchausen trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma)-- it seems to me that there are many different ways that this problem is presented, but this seems to me the most clear and the most general. I've read that coherentism is one solution to this problem. With coherentism, it seems like you ask two philosophers, you get three answers about whether any particular epistemological structure is coherent or not, so I'm open to X says n, Y says m kind of answers-- I understand that different philosophers will say different things. (If you have your own thoughts, I'm also interested in them-- I don't think your thoughts are any weaker just because you're not X or Y. The thoughts *might* be weak, but because the thoughts are weak, not because you're not famous.)