• Dr. Beitzel is definitely a sharp guy and has put a lot into this work. However, with great respect, I need to say he's a bit behind the "latest" in research regarding a route and crossing point. Using terms that past scholars have incorrectly translated to uphold the liberal take on the Exodus doesn't make for good scholarship. We have to dig in and not rely on others to influence our translations, this way we can more correctly understand possible definitions that have been brought to the table. For example, Yam Suph has to touch the southern boundary of the Promised Land and no other body of water meets these criteria except for the Gulf of Aqaba, Exodus 23:31. Yam Suph in the original Hebrew text means "sea end" basically, and later, outside influenced definitions, are what brought 'reeds', etc., to the definition table by ignoring the full context of what was said or understood. The Yam Suph 'sea end' as a basic term can include the whole territory of the Red Sea proper to include the gulfs of Suez and Aqaba as a geographical starter to be refined with further study. There is no imagined swamp, or shallow lake, that can meet all the biblical criteria and correctly define Yam Suph. Also, many of the shallow waters envisioned weren't even around during this period in history, let alone find one that has even a speck of archaeological evidence of a buried army, which shouldn’t be too hard to find if so located. As we have been given geographical ideas to consider, we start with God's word, then proceed to geography, not fancy ideas that come in from the secular side before we start looking around. Basically, too much good information has to be ignored or passed over (intentionally or accidentally) to support these alternate, non-biblical ideas. Appeal to “consensus” and just parroting other misguided theologians resembles nothing new or indeed anything scholarly. I find this non-biblical position easy to refute and the correct one easy to understand just by using basic bible study and scientific principles.
    Where Was the Biblical Red Sea? Examining the Ancient Evidence
    Add to cart

    1. Is this a review of the book or your own approach to discussion? It sounds like the author actually defends the view you have, but you think a better approach to discussion is "YOU'RE WRONG! I'M NOT LISTENING!" I don't think we need to be so afraid of scholarship. We can confidently engage it because we believe in truth. I'm not sure I understand the repulsive mindset you have to actually having discussion on these topics.

    2. As regards the site of the Red Sea crossing, Dr. Beitzel makes mention of the Gulf of Aqabah, the Gulf of Suez, and the shallow (4 ft. deep) marshy lakes east of the Egyptian delta. These lakes are filled by water annually from the Nile floods. At other times of the year, they dry up. In 1882 an east wind blew away, over night, like Moses' Red Sea east wind, the 6 ft. of water in lake Menzaleh at Port Said, the entrance to the Suez Canal. The lake bed was exposed for as far as the eye could see in the morning, 7 miles! This is called wind-set-down and it occurs ONLY over a LARGE shallow body of water. Menzaleh's average depth was 4 ft to 6ft in the 19th century AD according to European visitors. The lake was full of 10 ft. reeds, with a muddy bottom. Interestingly these 3 Yam Suph proposals are noted by other biblical scholars (currently: Egyptologists Kenneth A. Kitchen and Eric Hoffmeier). What is new, is that all three bodies of water are identified as being Yam Suph! Yam Suph 1: The Gulf of Suez Yam Suph 2: The marshy lakes east of the Delta Yam Suph 3: The Gulf of Aqaba Why the marshy lakes for yam suph?( Yam in Hebrew can refer to a lake; as in the Dead Sea, Sea of Galilee, Sea of Chinnereth in the Bible, all being lakes.) For the marsh lakes being yam suph its the distance suggested of three days in the Bible: Day 1, Rameses to Succoth; Day 2, Succoth to Etham; Day 3, Etham to Yam Suph and the nearby sites of Baal-Zephon, Migdal, and Pi-ha-Hiroth. Day 4: Cross the Yam Suph to enter the Wilderness of Shur/Etham, (3 days from Yam Suph to Marah), 1 day from Marah to Elim and its 12 fountains and 70 palm trees, then 1 day to Yam Suph from Elim. Israel's daily rate of travel is determined by the herds of cattle, and flocks of sheep and goats accompanying her. Today's Bedouin usually do not exceed 8 miles a day with their goats in the Sinai. If pressed, 15 miles a day is possible. So 3 days times 8 miles puts Yam Suph at 24 miles from Rameses on the Nile River. 3 days at 15 miles a day equals 45 miles from Ramese on the Nile to Yam Suph. The gulf of Aqaba cannot be reached from Rameses on the Nile in 3 days, with cattle, sheep, and goats. After Elim, Israel settles at the shore of Yam Suph again. Elim in the Bible has 12 springs or fountains and 70 palm trees. Today, the only site having geologically confirmed and attested 12 springs is Ayun Musa, east-south-east of the port of Suez. It also has palm trees. These 12 springs, according to Israeli geologists, are thermal, and consist of so-called "Paleowater," estimated to be 10,000 years old (formed at the time of the Earth's last Ice Age). So, if Drs. Kitchen and Hoffmeier are right, the Bible is describing THREE YAM SUPHS in the Exodus account! The Bible has a huge hoard of locusts blown into ALL Egypt by a west wind, and dumped in Yam Suph. ALL Egypt is from the Delta to Syene, modern Aswan on the Nile. The nearest body of water to accept locusts from ALL Egypt, is not the marshy lakes east of the Delta, its the Gulf of Suez. The gulf of Aqabah is too far away to accept locusts, when Suez is much nearer and handier.