Why should these “discoveries” be “shocking”?
Re: “Why should these “discoveries†be “shockingâ€?”
Only shocking to the revisionists and atheists who have been making a big deal recently about there supposedly “not being any evidence to prove that Nazareth existed in the 1st Century.” This shoots that accusation out of the water.
This kind of thing has happened before. A hundred years ago historians were saying the Bible was clearly fiction because there had never been archeological evidence for Nebuchadnezzar or Babylon or Nineveh as having existed - then, whoops, somebody discovered Nineveh. It got strangely quiet for awhile.
It’s clickbait. They want you to think that something was found that contradicts the Bible or is truly shocking or whatever.