Biblical evidences which support the Book of Mormon

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

You  do realize that Egypt is a real place with an ancient culture we can study, just like with the Jews, real people with a real history, real language.  We don't have any of these basics with the BOM.  At least not anything in the new world. 

There is also evidence of the name YHWH being recorded at the time in Egypt. There are also the Amarna tablets. There is also the name Israel appearing on the Merneptah Stele, etc. The Egyptians weren't going to record the exploits of the Hebrew people, but there is a little corroborative evidence.

But so far you don't seem to be interested in the corroborative evidence for the BoM...

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I know you r trying to help, but I do believe there is some supporting archaeological evidence to support the biblical story of the Exodus - nothing terribly direct, but corroborating, nonetheless. And I believe there is some real archaeological evidence for the BOM exodus as well. It seems Nahom is a real place in Yemen, Arabia. It turns out there exists a place almost due east of it as described in the BoM which meets all the particulars of the Bountiful where the Lehites built their boat. I believe there are many more archaeological points which are met with specificity in the promise land too. 

I know some people interpret evidence that way, but there is no historical case to be made with the evidence that exists to date. That includes Nahom, which is a weak psuedo-parallel and not nearly enough evidence to make the historical case. The story of the Exodus is similar - the evidence we have doesn't fit with the Genesis legend. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

I agree that there is not a lot of tangible evidence for the Exodus, but we do have textual evidence that supports the text of Exodus itself. And we know the Jews existed, Egypt existed, and that many places described in the Torah have been identified today.  Again, this type of evidence does not prove the event (exodus) took place, but it gives weight to the Bible.

We also know that the Jews are native to Canaan, they are not foreign invaders. 

For the Book of Mormon - the Americas exist, right? So do native Americans, and so do the Jews. The Book of Mormon talks about Jerusalem. Does that give you confidence that 1 Nephi is historical? 

This geographic stuff doesn't get you any closer to historical accuracy. There are plenty of ancient legends that take place in real historical cities. That doesn't make the stories historically accurate. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by Gray

[snowflake]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

There is also evidence of the name YHWH being recorded at the time in Egypt. There are also the Amarna tablets. There is also the name Israel appearing on the Merneptah Stele, etc. The Egyptians weren't going to record the exploits of the Hebrew people, but there is a little corroborative evidence.

But so far you don't seem to be interested in the corroborative evidence for the BoM...

Please share your evidence that supports the BOM other than a few vague passages in the Bible. I am open to being corrected!

[Marmonboy]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I know some people interpret evidence that way, but there is no historical case to be made with the evidence that exists to date. That includes Nahom, which is a weak psuedo-parallel and not nearly enough evidence to make the historical case. The story of the Exodus is similar - the evidence we have doesn't fit with the Genesis legend. 

I saw a documentary on Netflix (yeah, I know) that talked about the Exodus. The Biblical account does not mesh at all with the accepted Egyptian historical timeline. But there is evidence that, if you shift the dates back about 200 years, everything lines up-- cities being built, Semitic slaves, etc. followed by the collapse of the Egyptian government and the disappearance of the Semitic peoples. Neither the Genesis account nor the Egyptian timeline are bogus, just misaligned.

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, Gray said:

I know some people interpret evidence that way, but there is no historical case to be made with the evidence that exists to date. That includes Nahom, which is a weak psuedo-parallel and not nearly enough evidence to make the historical case. The story of the Exodus is similar - the evidence we have doesn't fit with the Genesis legend. 

To the contrary my friend. One just needs to look in the right time and place. Archaeologists got so stuck on "Raamses" that they didn't listen to what the Bible says. Raamses is in fact  a city built by a foreign people the Egyptians called the Hyksos. Rameses II did in fact rebuild the city, and added to it significantly. So probably at the time the Torah was written ie after 1200 BC, the city was called Pi-Ramses. But, by that time the Hebrews were long gone. The Hebrews built the city for a different pharaoh.

25 minutes ago, Marmonboy said:

I saw a documentary on Netflix (yeah, I know) that talked about the Exodus. The Biblical account does not mesh at all with the accepted Egyptian historical timeline. But there is evidence that, if you shift the dates back about 200 years, everything lines up-- cities being built, Semitic slaves, etc. followed by the collapse of the Egyptian government and the disappearance of the Semitic peoples. Neither the Genesis account nor the Egyptian timeline are bogus, just misaligned.

Correct. The Biblical account does not mesh with the usual timeline the archaeologists try to stuff it into. They do not use the biblical chronology. If one uses the biblical chronology, things start to fall into place if one looks in the right places. In other words the scholars don't believe the Bible enough.

Edited December 8, 2016 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Please share your evidence that supports the BOM other than a few vague passages in the Bible. I am open to being corrected!

Well, there are pages and pages of it.

What would you like to know?

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Well, there are pages and pages of it.

What would you like to know?

Why was Nephi writing his history in Egyptian? in 1 Nephi 1:2 

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

 

Edited December 8, 2016 by snowflake
1 nephi 1:2

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Why was Nephi writing his history in Egyptian? in 1 Nephi 1:2 

Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

 

That I really don't know. That is really not an archaeological question. However, there is considerable evidence that at the time the Hebrews had significant contact with the Egyptians. About 75 years before the Babylonian raid, the Egyptians and the  Hebrews started making friendly because of the rising power of the Assyrians. The Hebrews even had a permanent garrison on Elephantine island in southern Egypt, and got permission from the Egyptians to build a temple there. Then when Babylon rose to power the Egyptians and the Assyrians joined forces against the Babylonians. So the Babylonians also brought in the Scythians - probably with promise of plunder. The combined forces of the Assyrians and Egyptians fell to Nebopolassar. At this time the Hebrews were helping to protect Egypt's southern border. Zedekiah even got Jerusalem in trouble by continuing to help the Egyptians, so this resulted in the final destruction of Jerusalem by Nebochadnezzar. Anyway there is archaeological evidence of scrolls back and forth between the elephantine temple and the Jerusalem temple at the time. So the Hebrews would have been well aware of the compact hieroglyphic form of the royal Egyptian writing. I believe the Egyptians adopted it because it saved space on their stone monuments, and meant less stone carving. Engraving on golden plates presents similar problems and a need for compactness.

[CV75]

On 12/7/2016 at 9:24 AM, RevTestament said:

What others are there?

I’m not sure if Biblical evidences of the Book of Mormon are possible, according to 1 Nephi 13:40. The Book of Mormon establishes the truth of the Bible, but only in generalities because it also “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from” the Bible.

Many Biblical things are to be found in the brass plates (1 Nephi 5:10-13), including that which was lost from the Bible (verses 14-16; 1 Nephi 13:23-29), but the brass plates are yet to “go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of [Lehi’s] seed” along with the Book of Mormon, with these precious things restored (1 Nephi 5:18; 13:35-39).

The Biblical writings were never intended to establish the truth of the genealogy, testimonies and covenants of Joseph and his seed, which included the so-called Gentiles (who turned out to be Ephraimites) who were later guided to the land of promise, Things were designed the other way around, which is the beauty an genius of having “Another Witness.”

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure if Biblical evidences of the Book of Mormon are possible, according to 1 Nephi 13:40. The Book of Mormon establishes the truth of the Bible, but only in generalities because it also “make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from” the Bible.

 

Many Biblical things are to be found in the brass plates (1 Nephi 5:10-13), including that which was lost from the Bible (verses 14-16; 1 Nephi 13:23-29), but the brass plates are yet to “go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of [Lehi’s] seed” along with the Book of Mormon, with these precious things restored (1 Nephi 5:18; 13:35-39).

 

The Biblical writings were never intended to establish the truth of the genealogy, testimonies and covenants of Joseph and his seed, which included the so-called Gentiles (who turned out to be Ephraimites) who were later guided to the land of promise, Things were designed the other way around, which is the beauty an genius of having “Another Witness.”

 

I am of the considered opinion that the Protestant versions of the Bible fixed most of these problems. JS had a chance to restore these plain and precious truths, but really did not restore much, and even got permission from the Lord to use the KJV. This means the great abominable church was someone else.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am of the considered opinion that the Protestant versions of the Bible fixed most of these problems. JS had a chance to restore these plain and precious truths, but really did not restore much, and even got permission from the Lord to use the KJV. This means the great abominable church was someone else.

I don't know who the "the great abominable church" was specifically; it may not have even been a religious organization and it may have been posing as a religious organization.

I'm thinking the plain and precious things had been removed from the texts and teachings that were selected for inclusion in the Bible long before there was a Bible. Note that these things were not removed from the Bible itself directly, but were removed from “the gospel of the Lamb” or “the book of the Lamb of God” before "it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles" in the form of the Bible in its various versions. (1 Nephi 13: 26-29)

I think a good deal was restored by virtue of the Book of Mormon (there's another thread on that somewhere), even though the KJV was also used for those teachings that only required another witness. The Book of Mormon serves two functions: it both restores truth that was lost and testifies of truth that remained.

[boblloyd91]

16 hours ago, snowflake said:

Please share your evidence that supports the BOM other than a few vague passages in the Bible. I am open to being corrected!

there is the Mormon Interpreter, Book of Mormon Central, (check out the knowhy section especially) Hugh Nibley's works, old FARMs stuff etc. links provided upon request 

[boblloyd91]

16 hours ago, snowflake said:

Please share your evidence that supports the BOM other than a few vague passages in the Bible. I am open to being corrected!

Also check out Jeff Lindsay's work on Nahom and Brian Stubbs work on Uto Aztecan language and its correlation to Hebrew and Egyptian, again I can provide the links if you'd like

[snowflake]

20 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Also check out Jeff Lindsay's work on Nahom and Brian Stubbs work on Uto Aztecan language and its correlation to Hebrew and Egyptian, again I can provide the links if you'd like

would love them!  Any non LDS sources too!

[snowflake]

22 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

Also check out Jeff Lindsay's work on Nahom and Brian Stubbs work on Uto Aztecan language and its correlation to Hebrew and Egyptian, again I can provide the links if you'd like

Also I am looking for textual evidence, similar to the tens of thousands of manuscripts we have for the Bible.

[Calm]

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/19-textual-evidences-book-mormon

[boblloyd91]

48 minutes ago, snowflake said:

would love them!  Any non LDS sources too!

https://bookofmormoncentral.org/

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/11/uto-aztecan-and-its-connection-to-near.html?m=1

here you go

[snowflake]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-first-nephi-doctrinal-foundation/19-textual-evidences-book-mormon

Any textual manuscripts that support the BOM pre 1830? 

[snowflake]

[snowflake]

Here is a portion of Leviticus from the Septuigant.  I'm looking for anything pre 1830 that would support the BOM.

[Gray]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

To the contrary my friend. One just needs to look in the right time and place. Archaeologists got so stuck on "Raamses" that they didn't listen to what the Bible says. Raamses is in fact  a city built by a foreign people the Egyptians called the Hyksos. Rameses II did in fact rebuild the city, and added to it significantly. So probably at the time the Torah was written ie after 1200 BC, the city was called Pi-Ramses. But, by that time the Hebrews were long gone. The Hebrews built the city for a different pharaoh.

Correct. The Biblical account does not mesh with the usual timeline the archaeologists try to stuff it into. They do not use the biblical chronology. If one uses the biblical chronology, things start to fall into place if one looks in the right places. In other words the scholars don't believe the Bible enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

 

Quote

Summary[edit]

The archaeological data do not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story: there is no evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.[15] Scholars generally agree that while the exodus narrative contains late 2nd millennium elements, it has not been demonstrated that these elements could not belong to any other period and they are consistent with "knowledge that a 1st millennium BCE writer trying to set an old story in Egypt could have known."[16] A few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story.[17] They advance a range of arguments to explain the lack of evidence: possibly the Egyptian records of the presence of the Israelites and their escape have been lost or suppressed; possibly (or probably) the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace in the desert; possibly the huge numbers reported in the story are mistranslated.[18]

 

Quote

Archaeology[edit]

A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[29] and archaeologists generally agree that the Israelites had Canaaniteorigins.[30] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains are in the Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite.[31] Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether even this is an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[31]

 

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't know who the "the great abominable church" was specifically; it may not have even been a religious organization and it may have been posing as a religious organization.

I'm thinking the plain and precious things had been removed from the texts and teachings that were selected for inclusion in the Bible long before there was a Bible. Note that these things were not removed from the Bible itself directly, but were removed from “the gospel of the Lamb” or “the book of the Lamb of God” before "it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles" in the form of the Bible in its various versions. (1 Nephi 13: 26-29)

I think a good deal was restored by virtue of the Book of Mormon (there's another thread on that somewhere), even though the KJV was also used for those teachings that only required another witness. The Book of Mormon serves two functions: it both restores truth that was lost and testifies of truth that remained.

Here, let me help you out:

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

1 Nephi 13 says:

26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
 27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
 28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
 29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.

Protestants regularly dismiss this scripture, and defend the Bible as being perfect and unadulterated. However, let us now review their own history. Is there a specific church which changed the scriptures before they got disseminated among the nations of the Gentiles? With respect to my brethren this prophecy cannot be fulfilled by some amorphous "all the bad guys church." I now wish to address some of the changes to the scriptures history has revealed. Even Protestants recognized this occurred, thus making their Bibles unreliable, and necessitating that they produce their own translations which they tried to do from original source documents. However, when they began to produce newly translated Bibles, they were heavily persecuted for it. After John Wycliffe oversaw the translation of first English Bible from the Latin the "Constitutions of Oxford" of 1408 aimed to reclaim authority in all ecclesiastical matters, and specifically named the writings of John Wycliffe and others, as it noted that translation of scripture into English by unlicensed laity was a crime punishable by charges of heresy. Thereafter, many of the original translators, such as John Hus and  William Tynsdale, ultimately were killed and burned at the stake as the church became adamant that they were corrupting the scriptures and departing from the Latin Vulgate. Hus was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe’s manuscript Bibles used as kindling for the fire.

1 Cor 14:19 Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.

In these early days it is reported that upwards of 20,000 people would show up at services to hear the word of God in their own native tongue, but sadly today, the great St. Paul's Cathedral in London is lucky if two hundred show up for Sunday services. With the publication of these early English Bibles, and the Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus in 1516 AD, it became apparent to Protestants how corrupted and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, which is my desire to now address.

From the historical record it appears that Jerome was one of the first to translate scriptures into Latin, although there were older Latin versions. This was apparently done at the request of the Bishop of Rome, Damasus. Jerome was a church scholar who knew Greek and Hebrew, and therefore, was fairly suited to the task, as well as being the personal aide to the Pontiff. His writings show he was quite intelligent, and knew the Catholic interpretations of the scriptures and various prophecies, which I believe colored his translations into Latin. It was perhaps his intelligence as well as his allegiance to his Pontiff which, however, caused him to depart from the traditional word for word type of translation of the prior Latin versions. While it is often true, as it is with Latin, that there are no words in a different language to catch the exact nuanced meaning of the original language being translated, Jerome was not against coining new words or simply trying to render the sense of the original phrases rather than using a more rote literal interpretation. Hence, his translation read much differently from prior Latin versions in the ears of listeners. Although at first his Latin Vulgate was not warmly received by his contemporaries, especially Augustine, it eventually replaced the Old Latin versions as the standard of the western Church of Rome, and is the basis of the English translation known as the Douay-Rheims Bible, which I refer to herein. However, soon after undertaking the task, Pontiff Damasus passed away, and Jerome was not selected as the next pontiff, whereupon he left Rome, and traveled into Antioch and Alexandria before eventually settling in Bethlehem. 

I will describe just a few of the changes made to the scriptures. One of the important changes Jerome made was in translating the ships of Chittim in Daniel into the ships of Italy which seemed to better support the Catholic interpretation of Daniel 10-11 as Roman ships sent to stop Antiochus Epiphanes from invading Egypt. While this event actually took place, if it was prophesied as indicated by the Catholics in Daniel it causes the vision to fail. Another change made to Daniel is found in Daniel 11:37 which reads in Hebrew and English as: 
37 לז וְעַל-אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתָיו לֹא יָבִין, וְעַל-חֶמְדַּת נָשִׁים וְעַל-כָּל-אֱלוֹהַּ לֹא יָבִין: כִּי עַל-כֹּל, יִתְגַּדָּל.
KJV: Neither shall he regard the gods of his fathers; and neither the desire of women, nor any god, shall he regard; for he shall magnify himself above all. 
Living Bible (TLB): He will have no regard for the gods of his fathers, nor for the god beloved of women, nor any other god, for he will boast that he is greater than them all.

The Catholic version of the Latin Vulgate changes these words so as to eliminate any possibility of being construed as priesthood vows against marriage, and therefore eliminating the Bishop of Rome as being the possible subject of the prophecy.
Douay-Rheims Bible: And he shall make no account of the God of his fathers: and he shall follow the lust of women, and he shall not regard any gods: for he shall rise up against all things.

Another major change to the Old Testament is found in Genesis.
Gen. 3:15 (KJV): And I will put enmity between you [the Serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

Gen 3:15 (Douay-Rheims Vatican translation): I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

In the KJV the ready interpretation is that Christ would come out of the Church and bruise the head of the serpent, but that the church or heel would fall into apostasy and His/Christ's heel would be bruised. 
The Catholic version changes the ready interpretation to read "she" instead of "He" - in other words that it was the church or Mary arising from Eve which would bruise the serpent's head - thus, replacing Christ as He who defeated death and the serpent. It also does away with the evident apostasy which was recognized by Christ Himself when He said the night cometh in which no man could work in which the serpent would bruise His heel. The importance of such a "small" change is that it lauds the worship of the virgin Mary or the Catholic Church as "she." Instead of Christ arising out of the seed of the woman to crush the serpent's head, it is Mary, "she," who crushed the serpent's head. In Catholicism Mary is lifted up as a "divine" figure who is prayed to for intercession. She is considered "ever virgin." The brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned by scripture are dismissed as being from another wife or being cousins or some other type of kin. Of course scripture does not support such an interpretation but simply declares that Joseph "knew not" Mary until Jesus was born which is an euphamism indicating that the marriage was not consummated until that time. Matt 1:25. It also says:  Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
The simple, forthright interpretation of this scripture is that they eventually came together as man and wife, and consummated the marriage, thus bringing forth Jesus' brother James, and His other siblings.  If Jesus indeed had half-siblings by another mother, then obviously Joseph would have married another wife contrary to Catholic interpretation that polygyny is sinful, since we know that his mother Mary was still alive at the time of His crucifixion - this unless the other wife had all these other children and then died before Joseph came to know Mary - a very unlikely scenario given their probable ages.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Here is a portion of Leviticus from the Septuigant.  I'm looking for anything pre 1830 that would support the BOM.

The only one I know of is the Bible - well, all the thousands of manuscripts with the verses I have posted...

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

"the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.^"

 

I agree somewhat with these statements. However, the Sinai peninsula does in fact show signs of occupation during this time - by the Egyptians. In fact they had a significant mine in the southern peninsula. But, why are archaeologists looking there? Because Constantine's mother, Helena, had a vision or a dream, and said Mt Musa was the place. Do I accept her as inspired? NO, I do not. Why would God send the Israelites to an Egyptian-occupied area with an Egyptian garrison? Because Helena said so? Get real people. It was a political thing to put Mt Sinai within the borders of the Roman Empire. Wake up! The Catholics have misled the world on this one for 1700 years. So it shouldn't be surprising that there is no evidence of a significant occupation of the area of Mt Musa at the time. People go there out of tradition.

The usage of the term Kadesh-Barnea is confusing. Scholars have chosen a site of a large spring known as Ein-Qudierat to be Kadesh-Barnea. However, this cannot be for several reasons. First I believe the site is actually within the borders of Israel drawn by the Lord. Exodus and Numbers, however, say that Israel did NOT go into the promise land until 40 years were up, and not by that route, but in the opposite direction. I believe the site is well within the borders of the wilderness of Zin which was part of the promise land. Archaeology provides the next reason. Archaeology finds the first evidence of occupation to be around the time of King Solomon. I believe the real Kadesh Barnea is miles southward.

20 hours ago, RevTestament said:

To the contrary my friend. One just needs to look in the right time and place. Archaeologists got so stuck on "Raamses" that they didn't listen to what the Bible says. Raamses is in fact  a city built by a foreign people the Egyptians called the Hyksos. Rameses II did in fact rebuild the city, and added to it significantly. So probably at the time the Torah was written ie after 1200 BC, the city was called Pi-Ramses. But, by that time the Hebrews were long gone. The Hebrews built the city for a different pharaoh.

Correct. The Biblical account does not mesh with the usual timeline the archaeologists try to stuff it into. They do not use the biblical chronology. If one uses the biblical chronology, things start to fall into place if one looks in the right places. In other words the scholars don't believe the Bible enough.

Archaeology has found nothing to support the story, because they have bought into the accepted traditions, and have NOT been looking in the right places. You ask well what are the right places? For that I am writing a book. I simply cannot do it justice to post the pages of evidence in posts. When it is ready, I will be able to post links.