In 2005 I visited the Island of Malta in the hope of researching the events of Acts 27: 39-44, 28: 1-10. After much research and travelling on foot to various sites connected to the Biblical events, St Pauls Bay became a prominent feature, yet lacked something?
Simon Peter Sutherland at San Pawl Milqi, Malta
© 2005/2013 Simon Peter Sutherland
However, I also came upon a new claim that parts of an ancient shipwreck had been found on the seabed at St Thomas Bay, in contrast to the traditional site of the shipwreck at St Pauls bay.
If these finds are true then they yet again offer more evidence for the Bible as History. The problem is that far too many people look for evidence in the wrong places, then they critique the text they clearly do not know so well.
This video contains some information about the archaeological finds.
Simon Peter Sutherland 
#1 by campanella on March 9, 2014 - 2:30 PM
Great artwork! That is the style of facts that are supposed to always be embraced around the web. Disgrace on Google for now not necessarily positioning this informative article superior! Come on more than along with visit my website. Many thanks Equates to)
#2 by Neville Galea on February 10, 2020 - 3:33 PM
Both the route and the marine archeological findings including some broken amphorae (like the ones that was used on the Roman ship that St.Paul traveled on and not mentioned in the video) prove this theory that St.Thomas bay and the Munxar reef are the true locations of the Apostle ‘s shipwreck,and certainly not the traditional beleive of the northern part of Malta.