Debates have been going on for years as to the location of the Red Sea crossing and Mt. Sinai.
There are the claims of Ron Wyatt which many believe show the correct site of these locations, while others scoff and discredit them, based mainly upon other claims he made that are questionable.

However there are many others who, like Wyatt, are strongly suggesting the Israelites crossed at Nuea Beach, where an underwater land bridge connected the Sinai Peninsula to the Arabian side. From there they went on to "the Mount of God" or Mount Horeb also called Mount Sinai located in the Arabian Peninsula.

Here is one report of a recent exploration, a group of divers equipped with modern equipment, unavailable to Wyatt, entered the Red Sea to explore the site to see if these things were so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IS93G_JBMM



Salvage Divers Explore Red Sea 2025

Isn't his name Ron Wyatt?

Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing the link.

There were three routes from Egypt to Canaan, a northern route, which the Bible says that they did not take, so traditionally it has been assumed that they must have taken the southern route. However, there is also a middle route; as well as the idea that they did not really use the Sinai much if at all, but used Saudi Arabia. If I recall correctly, Wyatt's suggestion is the Arabia route.

There are a few locations that I find intriguing about the possible locations. First, the idea of the crossing at the reed sea. While many scholars accept this location, both conservative and liberals, there are those who say that this area is too shallow to be impressive. I even heard (and wrote to correct and got an apology from) Mark Finley who in a show joked that it was really a miracle that God could drown the Egyptian Army in such a shallow body of water. This "shallow" body of water has split in two several times over history until the Suez Canal eventually changed the dynamics, causing it to split the last time in the early 20th century (1927 if I recall correctly.) It would part if an east wind blew over it all night. The Bible says that the east wind blew all night. It was something that happened infrequent enough for people in the villages around the area to go and see the situation, but they needed to be careful because if they were caught when the water came back people did drown. In the last splitting, about 100 years ago, there was a great loss of life, with one of the nearby villages loosing nearly it's entire population. If this "shallow" body of water was able to naturally cause this great loss of life over history, why can't it cause the great loss of life when the God used nature, the natural and supernatural working together destroy those pursuing the Hebrews?

This crossing would have placed the Hebrews where they could take either the middle or southern route through the Sinai.

On the middle route there are some mountains which would have been in ancient Midian that have been suggested for Mt. Sinai. Remember, Moses was in Midian. One of these mountains is Mt. Karkom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Karkom

There are mountains that people came to worship over history. They have rock carvings of people worshiping the god of the mountain. Mt. Karkom (and apparently at least one other mountain in the area which I've only heard in passing) differs from the other rock carvings in that in place of a drawing of the god, these rock carvings only have a straight lime indicating an invisible God worshiped there. There are signs of people camping in the area. The location fits in the distances the Bible gives to Mt. Sinai from different locations, as well as the distance Elijah ran to the mountain, which our traditional mountains in the south does not fit (and I'm not sure about the suggestions in Arabia.) As well as the distance Abraham and Isaac traveled to Mt. Moriah. (The Bible also equates Mt. Moriah with the temple mountain, however, in Hebrew thinking it could be an application of the events. Also, the city of Jerusalem/Salem and King Melchizedek sitting on it, and Abraham's story indicates out in the wilderness.) Again, the other mountain also fits the distances, maybe even a little better, but I only heard of the other in passing and not from reliable locations.

The biggest problem with Mt. Karkom is that it is about 500 or so years too early for the Exodus. The main archaeologist who studied the mountain suggests that we should date the Exodus to this earlier date. The Wikipedia article points out some other archaeologist who are very much against this. Other archaeologists are still open to Mt. Karkom saying that the early date may not be that big a problem pointing out that the fleeing Hebrews would have left behind was mostly biodegradable and stones that would fit in with the older encampments. That Mt. Karkom was for a long time a place of worship of those who did not worship idols, but an invisible god, and that God used this for the Hebrews.

As Seventh-day Adventists we believe in the purpose and perpetuity of God's law. We say that God works with his natural laws and that God wants us to cooperate with and stay faithful to his laws. This is why we have the health message instead of faith healers. The crossing at the Sea of Reeds would fit this Adventist perspective of God controlling his laws instead of just being impressive and ignoring his laws. Mt. Karkom is in an intriguing location to be considered as we consider the different possible locations for Mt. Sinai.

Thank-you, Kevin, for your post explaining different view points and the reasoning behind them. Having different ideas expressed makes the thread more interesting.

The location of these Biblical sites have been disputed for centuries. Books have been written uplifting several different sites. In the end, it's not of salvific importance to know exactly where these things happened, the main thing is to know we serve a God of omnipotent power, who does great wonders for His people.



For me, I see problems with the Reed Sea being the Red Sea.

1. The Israelites started their journey from Rameses (Raamses) a city in Goshen. (not associated with Ramses). Goshen was east of the Nile population and rather close to this "reed sea" area. This closeness, contributing to it being a great place for agricultural people like the Israelites. Also it wasn't just one "reed sea" there were several possible bodies of water near Egypt that the Israelites could have crossed.

This area in which were several bodies of water, was also the "starting point" for the road heading north (which Israel didn't take, God did not lead them to that point Ex. 13:17) So it just seems more logical that God led them away from that point not through it. The Reed Sea acted as sort of a border for Egypt and was heavily guarded with something like 11 fortresses.

2. Israel left Egypt on the 15th day of the first month the day after the Passover. (Ex. 12:37,51
Numbers 33:3). They went OUT of the land of Egypt (Ex. 13:18 ) They didn't hover around Egypt's boarder -- they left the land of Egypt.
The Israelites left Egypt in haste, yet in order. They were divided into several bodies, and each division had its leader. They were to leave in haste, as the obstinacy of Pharaoh was such that, after they had buried their dead, and had seen that the dreadful judgments of God had ceased, he would again change his mind.
The ancient Egyptians had an elaborate set of funerary practices that they believed were necessary to ensure their immortality after death. The Pharaoh and all his servants would have had their eldest sons "mummified" with all ceremonies, etc. taking more than 2-3 days.
During this time the Israelites would not be hovering around on Egypt's border.

3. Even after the crossing, Israel didn't move away from this "Reed Sea" or Red Sea, as the Bible records them camping again by the Red Sea. That makes much more sense if the Red Sea was the eastern arm, considerably further away from Egypt and they just kept traveling south relatively parallel to it's banks.

4. There is no evidence around these reed seas of a million people and a huge Egyptian army incident happening, at least not from what I've read. Yet there is evidence on the eastern arm of the Red Sea at Nuea Beach.

5. There is the indication that Israel was blocked in by mountains, the sea before them, the army behind. There are no big mountains by the reed sea, but there are at the Nuea Beach, it fits the description!
And also (if one needs a little literal help) there is an underwater land bridge at that point of the Nuea Beach which supernatural winds could expose.
However, the Bible says "Exodus 14:22 And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: (not muddy ground as would be natural if only the water was blown back) with the waters a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left. (Would waters blown back by winds naturally stand like walls on both sides?)

Just questions.