Talk:Sea of Reeds

Source of this "pop culture" error turns out to be a "pop" itself: answers.com

Rabbi Shraga Simmons writes:

The name of the body of water was called the Sea of Reeds, often mistranlsated as Red Sea. But the Sea of Reeds was a deep body of water, and tunnels opened up for the Jews to walk through. [1]

I don't think Wikipedia should flatly contradict religious tradition on the basis of one rabbi's reading of the texts. Uncle Ed 12:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- -

Rabbi is correct. The translation of suph in Exodus is given as the Red Sea rather than its more correct rendition of Reed Sea. Suph means papyrus reeds. An attempt to correct the widely accepted Red Sea is rather difficult, but the fact should be pointed out, and doesn't really change the story.

202.61.229.133 13:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the statements made in the existing page are incorrect, sufficient to warrant a fresh start. They do not show a neutral point of view, and are illogical. The quotes given do not reference the 'Sea of Reeds' at all, but specifically the Nile River, ie from the Nile to the Euphrates. The 'Sea of Reeds' is not technically correct, this should be redirected to the 'Reed Sea'. The 'Reed Sea' is the same as 'yam suph'. The 1 Kings quote proves this, not disproves it. The 'Sea of Reeds' cannot be a tributory of the Nile, not just because the Nile really has no tributories, but because Solomon's navy was at Ezion-Geber, on the sea, not in the river. I think this is sufficient justification. Cobblers 13:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]