Take for exmaple the "Red Sea" was actually Sea of Reeds in Hebrew
This always seemed like a ridiculous cop out to me. You could wade through the Sea of Reeds on a good day with no part at all. If this was, in fact, the body of water, why even write it as a "miracle" in the first place? There'd be no miracle in the Israelites crossing the Sea of Reeds: the miracle, if any, would be the Egyptians managing to drown in it. (Same thing goes for the Israelites' later crossing of the River Jordan under Joshua, which is about waist-high, but which is parted anyway for no discernible reason). How could the author of Exodus portray parting the Sea of Reeds as a miracle when it'd be manifestly unnecessary for passage out of Egypt without the original audience for which the text was intended laughing off the "miracle?" At least the Red Sea is a formidable body of water.
In a way I have much more respect for someone like jmfcst that flat-out accepts the miracles in the Biblical narrative over someone that tries to explain them away and ends up with a text that loses all its punch.
Trying to fix the place names in Exodus with specific locations is pretty much a fool's errand. You can come up with pretty theories, but none of them can be proven. That said, the real barrier for Israel was not any body of water in their path, but rather the lack of water for all the people and animals following Moshe.
A flash flood on command to drown pharaoh's chariots is both believable and miraculous, so the Sea of Reeds theory is workable. The only other alternative I've come across that seems to make sense is a crossing of the Gulf of Aqaba. But neither theory is provable.
That Israel headed down the west coast of the Gulf of Suez for a crossing of either the Gulf of Suez or the main portion of the Red Sea does not make sense to me. Given how stiff-necked and disputatious Israel is portrayed, you'd think someone would have pointed out that you can't get to Canaan that way. Yes, the ancients did at times have a poor grasp of geography, but not that poor.
Replacing names of places with actual places of existence is considered by some to be demythologizing. The problem with that is that when you demythologize, you actually remythologize. It's missing the point. The whole point of the Exodus story is that YHWH performed a miracle. Sure there might be elaborations and mythologies in there, but it's missing the point to nit pick every little verse even though it is very interesting to do at times.
