I find this idea of literally taking the bible into account a little obnoxious. The Good Book has many debatable parts, the most obvious of them the Genesis.
I'm trying to look the Bible here through the eyes of a historian, and thus disregard even the parts that appear impossible judging by the modern laws of the physics (miracles, etc). The Bible mostly accounts the days when there has been plenty witnesses around to see and hear the things that have been written up to its pages. But what about the part when there was no one getting up a live account?
As the human cognitive thinking has been pretty much the same for the time homo sapiens has roamed on this Earth, it would be easy to say that the missing part where reconstructed by using the most viable scientific theories available.
So I'm not accusing the writers of the Bible for writing sheer fiction; the Good Book can well be a very accurate historical document that's written after the knowledge and theories possessed on the day.
It brings us to an interesting mindplay. What if the Bible was written on this very day? Presuming, of course, that it actually was written based on the facts and theories people knew at the very moment back then. People taking the Bible literally these days can't probably deny that in core, it's a history book to them that sheds the light into the early days of a man. But at the same time, they're creating a paradox, as they fail to read it as any other historical document should be read in order to bring out the most of it; reflect it to their own time.
If a modern day encyclopaedia and one that's been written fifty years ago possess contradicting information, rare is the mind who trusts the latter one. Now, why can't same be taken into account with the Bible? Possibly because people have been told that the Good Book can't possess misguiding information. And we shouldn't forget that the quarter who most outlines this is the one that wants to keep the religion organized, something Jesus himself found non-favourable.
I think the biggest threat to reaccounting the Holy Word using the current knowledge is that it strips people from their faith. I don't think so, as there is no way to scientifically prove there is no God.
Half a millennia ago a man named Martin Luther made an enormous favor to the world with what he did. Perhaps it would be an opportune time for a modern-day counterpart who'd bring the christianity up to speed with the rest of the world without mutilating its core ideals.