Printed from http://tektonics.org/yamsuph.php
Various locations are said by Skeptics to not have been at the Red Sea, for example, Solomon's port of Ezion-Geber. This matter is easily solved by noting that the current "Red Sea" is not the same geographic entity referred to in the Hebrew text as yam suph. In this regard I will simply draw upon this observation from Glenn Miller's page:
Standard discussions of this issue normally focus on an alleged dichotomy between the Red Sea and the "Sea of Reeds". The Hebrew phrase in the passage above does not indicate this, but other passages call this body of water yam suph or "sea of reeds". The LXX understood this to refer to the Red Sea, and translated it so. Recent archeological studies have made a case that the Red Sea/Gulf of Suez extended much farther north at times in Egypt's history, and that the two phrases 'sea of reeds' and 'Red Sea' are therefore describing a part of the Red Sea that would have extended north-westward to the Bitter Lakes region. The likely character of this section is described by Hoffmeier after discussing in detail the recent research [OT:IIE:209]:
"Geological, oceanographic, and archaeological evidence suggest that the Gulf of Suez stretched further north than it does today and that the southern Bitter Lake extended further south to the point where the two could have actually been connected during the second millennium. This linking may have stood behind the Hebrew naming the lake yam sup as well as the Red Sea to which it was connected."
[And, before someone raises the old objection that papyrus reeds don't grow in salt water...(1) the suph word is for reeds, not specifically papyrus; and (2) there are reeds that thrive in those salt water areas TODAY (e.g., halophytes).]