Jim Davila notes a few. For example,
Model shrines of the type presented Tuesday have been found at many other sites belonging to other local cultures, and their similarity to Temple architecture as described in the Bible has already been noted, said Aren Maeir of Bar-Ilan University, who leads a dig at the ruins of the nearby Philistine city of Gath. And the existence of lions and birds on the clay model undermine the claim that no figures of people or animals have been found at Qeiyafa, he said.
Qeiyafa indeed appears to have been inhabited by Israelites, Maeir said, but the cultural lines among the various peoples of the Land of Israel at that time, he said, were “fuzzier than the way they are often described.”
UPDATE 1: John Hobbins, who consistently offers a though-provoking perspective weighs in:
My take: the finds from KQ Yossi Garfinkel and his team continue to present to the public with great fanfare are boring.They are compatible with biblical traditions about the time period in question. They also fail to confirm those traditions in the sense of proving that, for example, someone named Saul based in the northern highlands contested the Philistines, only to be succeeded by someone named David based for a time in Hebron and then in Jerusalem, to be succeeded by someone named Solomon who developed organic ties with the Phoenicians of Tyre and endowed Jerusalem with a state-sponsored temple.
UPDATE 2: James McGrath links to everything fit to link to before concluding:
And so my suggestion is to indeed get excited – any time we discover more data with which to reconstruct and interpret the past, it is exciting! But be wary of both those who claim that the find “proves the Bible” and those who dismiss it as irrelevant. The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between.