Did the Israelites Cross the RED SEA or the SEA OF REEDS?

Did the Israelites cross the Red Sea or the, "sea of reeds," during the Exodus? “Israel in Egypt” by James Hoffmeier: https://amzn.to/3AZ4TSC (affiliate) “The Lost Sea of the Exodus” by Glen Fritz: https://amzn.to/3RkZETj (affiliate) For many centuries, Bible scholars and lay believers have speculated where along the Red Sea that the Exodus crossing took place. In more recent times though, there has been a rise in speculation that the Exodus crossing did not take place in the Red Sea at all, but rather in a, “sea of reeds,” usually interpreted to mean an inland lake somewhere along the northeast border of ancient Egypt. The term that historically has been translated as, “Red Sea,” is יַם ס֑וּף (yam suph). יַם means, “sea.” However, ס֑וּף does not mean, “red.” (The Hebrew word for, “red,” is אָדוֹם.) ס֑וּף is typically understood to mean, “reed.” Part of the reason for this is that the first occurrence of ס֑וּף in the Bible is in Exodus 2:3 where the infant Moses is placed בַּסּ֖וּף – “in the reeds,” of the Nile. With the development of Egyptology over the last 200 years, many scholars have come to believe the Hebrew word ס֑וּף is a cognate word, deriving from the ancient Egyptian word twf(y), which also means, “reed.” The argument then follows that since the original Egyptian word meant, “reed,” that the same definition should also be applied to the Hebrew ס֑וּף. Those who emphasize the Egyptian context of twf(y) believe it is more appropriate to identify the יַם ס֑וּף with one of the inland lakes along Egypt’s border with Sinai. But if יַם ס֑וּף does not mean, “Red Sea,” why has this been the traditional translation? When the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the translators used the phrase, “ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα,” to translate יַם ס֑וּף. “ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα,” means, “Red Sea,” so the Greek is the source of the traditional translation. A number of people have argued that this is simply a mistranslation on the part of the Greek translators that has managed to stick with the passage of time. However, there are some other portions of the Biblical text that need to be considered before jumping to this conclusion. The Bible provides a geographical understanding of יַם ס֑וּף in 1 Kings 9:26. There are two landmarks here the Bible gives that help locate יַם ס֑וּף: the cities of Ezion–Geber and Eloth. These are port cities along the northern coast of the Gulf of Aqaba – the eastern branch of the Red Sea. Further, Exodus 23:31 establishes יַם ס֑וּף as a border for the kingdom of Israel. These observations are the fuel for the debate over the location of sea of the Exodus. So, who's right? I believe the answer to this is that those scholars who hold an inland crossing site have an erroneous assumption that the Bible uses יַם ס֑וּף in reference to multiple bodies of water. If we rely solely on the text, all references to יַם ס֑וּף are understood as the Gulf of Aqaba, and there is nothing present in the text that would contradict this understanding. The, “sea of reeds,” interpretation forces the reader to assume an Egyptian understanding of words rather than a Hebrew one. It is inappropriate to restrict the semantic domain of the Hebrew ס֑וּף to meaning strictly, “reeds,” on the basis of how the ancient Egyptians used the word twf(y). The reason it is inappropriate is because this does not allow the Biblical authors to use ס֑וּף in the ways that they do. While ס֑וּף is used in Exodus 2:3 to describe the hiding place of baby Moses among the reeds of the Nile, ס֑וּף is most commonly used elsewhere in the Bible to describe an end, boundary or destruction of something. In Exodus 2:3, ס֑וּף probably refers to reeds insofar as the reeds are present at the boundary (i.e. end) of the river, along its bank. Thus, a more appropriate translation of the phrase יַם ס֑וּף would be, “sea of the end.” “sea of destruction,” or, “sea of the boundary.” It is likely that this understanding lies behind why the Greek translators of the Old Testament choose to render יַם ס֑וּף as ἐρυθρὰ θάλασσα – not because they were attempting to literally translate יַם ס֑וּף, but because they were attempting place the body of water that יַם ס֑וּף was in reference to. The only body of water we should consider as the crossing site of the Exodus is the Gulf of Aqaba. It is the only body of water that the Bible specifically identifies by geography in reference to יַם ס֑וּף. All other references to יַם ס֑וּף must be subject to the clear identification of the Gulf of Aqaba as the sea of יַם ס֑וּף.