Moses parting the red sea. Or reed sea

[High Deity]

On TV last night, I watched a show on the story of Moses from a historical perspective. One of the things mentioned is that the fact that Moses parted the Red Sea is a mistranslation, that it was actually the Reed Sea. Can anyone that knows much about the bible (particularly original translations) clairify this or point me to a site that may have more information on this?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The Hebrew text says "Yam Suph," or "Sea of Reeds." It was mistranslated in the KJV as "Red Sea," as has been misunderstood as such by many Christian readers ever since (although not by Jews.) It was probably a fresh water lake not a salt water sea. Papyrus reeds can only grow in fresh water, and the Hebrew "yam" can mean any large body of water, not just salt water. There was a large, marshy area south of Egypt, and not far from what is believed to be the city of Ramses (traditionally believed to be the Biblical Pharaoh) which was quite reedy and was a much more likely site for the Biblical crossing if anything like that occurred. There really is no evidence that it was the Red Sea, and there are logistic and practical arguments against such a reading as well as linguistic. Many modern translations now say "Reed Sea" or "Sea of Reeds" instead of Red Sea.

[asterion]

It's not all the KJV's fault with regards to the mistranslation. The Hebrew has no vowels, after all.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally posted by asterion
It's not all the KJV's fault with regards to the mistranslation. The Hebrew has no vowels, after all.

Right, but as the Hebrew for "red" isn't all that similar to the Hebrew for "reed", while the English words are similar, it's more likely to be a copyist's error in English.

[asterion]

You're right.

Besides, for a guy who was supposed to be a trained military guy, going that far south to make a tougher crossing would be pretty stupid. Unless God really wanted to show off.