Well, not to me. But some "scientific" reporters will resort to misleading headlines and extremely premature conclusions when
an artifact is found which they think proves, or at the very least, lends credence to, something in the Bible.
This is a very good case in point. Small seal from around the 11th century BCE appears to show someone fighting a lion or other large animal with a feline tail. Why, it must be Samson!!! After all, that's about the right time period.
I'm sure no other person in that area at that time ever had an encounter with a lion and had to fight it in a self-preservation mode. And since that never happened at all, then it could not have found its way into the Bible as legend and attributed to Samson, a character that is found no where else other than the Bible. No, sir. That can't be it.
Shit like this just drives me crazy.