You've probably heard people (scholars) say that there is lots of stuff in the bible that is not historically accurate. This is sometimes out rightly rejected but more often than not clarified by a statement along the lines of "well historical biography is not the style that the gospels (or other books) were written in". Which leaves the lay person asking "so what style were they written in? Make it up as you go along style?" Well I think I may have a modern day writing style that is analogous to many of the biblical writings (particularly those dealing with events that have taken place in history) It is the political cartoon.
The political cartoon accurately and often in a very quick way tells exactly what is going on without necessarily being historically accurate. So in centuries to come someone might look back at two cartoons of the historical event of the Australian prime minister meeting the American president, one cartoon might have the prime minister laying prostrate before the president and another might have the prime minister kissing the president's bum. Now a historian might tell us that it is unlikely that either events took place and that the two cartoons contradict each other. But, as 21st centurary cartoon readers we know that these cartoons are actually an accurate telling of what is going on, in many ways far more accurate than a photo of the two leaders shaking hands ever could be.
I've found the political cartoon analogy really helpful. If ever I hear someone say that something in the bible didn't or couldn't happen the way it is recorded to ask is this similar to how a political cartoonist would have recorded this event?