A
While I was not there and I am not a Biblical archeologist, there are two reasons why I reject the traditional sites for both the red sea crossing and mount sinai. First, there are alot of things the popular evangelical church today gets wrong. They promote that Jesus was white or European. Yet, he was Jewish. The popular evangelical church today ignores God's righteousness or common basic morals. They also believe in the Sethite view (Which is the popular view taught in Bible colleges); And the list goes on and on. So it makes sense that they get yet another thing concerning God's truth wrong. Second, your view is not simple and easy to see. It seems overly scholarly versus just basic evidences that you can tell a simple guy whereby he will get it. Coral in the shape chariot wheels, a rise in sea level off a beach like area so as to cross and it is appx. 35 miles to Jebel al Lawz. Jebel al lawz has tons of evidence that makes it obvious it is mt. Sinai. A burned top of the mountain that was not from volcanic activity. No other mountain was burned in this way. The split rocks has been found nearby. Elijah's cave. It is also in parallel with the longitude of Jerusalem. Which was a point Paul was trying to make in Galatians. So unless you can dumb it down so as to make your evidence a little more simple for us basic common folks, I have no real reason to consider it. For I already have good reasons for believing the sites that I do. For me, they are the type evidences to bring someone who has been seeking the truth about God.