Today's truth discussion

So here are my thoughts on Correspondent truth versus Coherent truth. I believe i favor the theory on truth as of correspondence because it is more realistic as to how the world actually is. Facts and evidence are easier to determine because there is visible evidence for it to be so. Though as we mentioned in class, we cannot be certain that what we visibly see is absolutely correct, and everything in the world in that sense could be questioned. But to me, the theory on coherent truth seems to be based all on belief. Coherence is claims that are believed to be true just because other claims say they are. The example of God existing because the Bible says he does really interested me. Not to take any sides on religion or say anything is made up but it is based on theory that God exists. The Bible has supposed evidence that has been around for a long time and is in God's own words. Who is to say it is or isn't true? We don't have any evidence other than the words that it in fact could be true. What if it was based on imagination? Philosophy is the study of knowledge and finding truth. How else to we find out things other than to ask what comes to our thoughts and imagination? Another thing that came to my mind during today's class discussion was people who hallucinate and are delusional. We assume they are crazy because they see things that we do not but second guessing what is and isn't true could make them completely normal and everyone else crazy. At least, thats how i saw it. So i guess my question is (and I dont't know if this makes sense) how do we confirm truth from the thoughts and questions that come from imagination according to the correspondence theory that the world is the way it is and the coherent truth being believed by other claims?