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.