Most modern believers interpret their sacred texts as mostly metaphorical. Only the most hard-core fundamentalists maintain that Genesis for example is an accurate historical account of the origin of Humanity.
In order to maintain such a hard stance, they must reject most of what the modern world has to offer, in particular empirical science and its discoveries.
It is unfortunately an extremely important myth as without it there is no original sin, and without original sin there is no need for a universal redeemer.
Faced with the evidence, believers resort to a number of techniques to salvage their faith. Some reject empirical science as a whole, some misrepresent the evidence and twist it to fit their pre-established conclusions, and some revise their interpretation of the text by declaring it "metaphorical".
I'm not too interested about the first two, which have willingly moved beyond reason. The third is more intriguing, but I think not much more consistent.
If the god of the Bible exists, he had the power of making the world exactly as it is described in the books he supposedly inspired. Why didn't he then?