"O L-RD, Who are my power and my strength and my refuge in the day of trouble, to You nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, 'Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail! Can a man make gods for himself, and they are no gods? 'Therefore, behold I let them know; at this time I will let them know My power and My might, and they shall know that My Name is the L-RD".
Jeremiah 16:19-21

Isaiah 7:14 Has Nothing to do with Messianic Prophecy

October 6, 2012

in Noahide - The Ancient Path,Virgin Birth

Isaiah 7:14 and why the New Testament is nonsense!

One criticism I have for the New Testament is how the gospel authors twisted the “facts” to fit their particular point of view. In one instance, the author for the gospel of Matthew misquotes a passage from old testament and twists it around to make it appear as if it were a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled. I’m referring to Isaiah 7:14, the supposed “virgin birth prophesy” according to Christian apologists.

Unfortunately for whomever wrote the gospel of Matthew, Isaiah 7:14 is not even a messianic prophecy.

——————————————–
Like a virgin?
——————————————–

Now, let’s take a look at the Isaiah 7:14 passage which you can find in the Old Testament. Accurately translated to English from the original Hebrew it should read:

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and you [or, she] shall call his name Immanuel.”

Notice that the word “virgin” is missing from this passage. In most Christian bibles, this passage reads differently, such as:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

The use of the word virgin in this passage IS A MISTRANSLATION. When this passage was translated from Hebrew into Greek many eons ago, the word almah, which in Hebrew means ‘young woman’ or ‘young maiden’, was mistakenly translated to ‘virgin’ in Greek. This is important because whomever wrote the gospel of Matthew quoted a Greek translation of the Isaiah 7:14 passage, not the original, accurate Hebrew translation.

In other words, the writer or writers for the gospel of Matthew were quoting a mistranslation! They thought the Isaiah passage referred to a virgin birth, when it actually does not. Only the Greek mistranslation uses the specific word for virgin.

Here is the passage from the gospel of Matthew, which quotes the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy:

Matthew 1:20-23 (King James Version)

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

———————————-
The Implications
———————————-

This has HUGE implications because:
1. The New Testament is NOT the infallible word of God because it contains errors. In this case, a mistranslated and misinterpreted prophecy from Old Testament.

2. The writer/s of the gospel of Matthew may have made an honest mistake, or they were intentionally trying to scour the Old Testament for prophecies that they could twist around to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled them. Either way, they were unaware that their Greek Old Testament contained a mistranslation.

3. The gospel of Matthew writer/s had no understanding of the context of the Isaiah passage that they quoted. If they did, they would have realized that it WAS NOT a messianic prophecy.

4. And lastly, the gospel writers would then have to create an elaborate fictional story about Jesus’ virgin birth in order to make it appear as if he fulfilled the mistranslated Isaiah 7:14 prophecy.

*One more thing, compare the virgin birth stories found in Luke and Matthew. You’ll notice quite a few discrepancies between them.

——————————————–
Why Isaiah 7:14 is NOT a messianic prophecy
——————————————–

Here’s the context for the Isaiah 7:14 passage:

The seventh chapter in the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom of Judah. Around the year 732 B.C.E., the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom of Israel, led by King Peqah, and the Kingdom of Syria (Aram), led by King Retsin. These two armies had besieged Jerusalem.

Isaiah records that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. G-d sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand – G-d would protect him and his kingdom and that their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.

It is clear from the narrative in this chapter, that Isaiah’s declaration (Is 7:14-16) was a prophecy about the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies from the north. The verses Isaiah 7:15-16 state that, by the time this child (whose imminent birth was foretold in Isaiah 7:14) reaches the age of maturity (“… he knows to reject bad and choose good …”), the kings of the two enemy nations will be gone, in fact, they will be killed. Two Biblical passages, 2 Kings 15:29-30 and 2 Kings 16:9, confirm that this prophecy was contemporaneously fulfilled when these two kings were assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the name of the child in Isaiah 7:14, Immanu’el, is a sign which points to the divine protection that King Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their otherwise certain demise at the hands of these two enemies. Clearly, Isaiah 7:14 is a near-term prophecy that is part of an historic narrative, and which was fulfilled in the immediate time frame, not some seven-and-a-half centuries in the future.

[link to www.messiahtruth.com]

As you can see here, Isaiah 7:14 has absolutely nothing to do with messianic prophecy. Let me repeat this one more time, ISAIAH 7:14 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MESSIANIC PROPHECY! It is not a prophecy for a virgin birth, and it is not about the future birth of the supposed messiah.

I want you guys to reflect on this subject. If you are a Christian, you have to admit that the New Testament does contain errors. The error I just pointed out is only one of many.

Anonymous Coward
Want to share or print this? Choose how below:
  • Print
  • email
  • Add to favorites
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us

{ 2 comments… read them below or add your own }

Joe March 8, 2013 at 6:58 am

The problem with this is the Rabbis who translated the Septuagint used the Greek word for “virgin”.  They saw “almah” as being consistent with virgin.  Yes almah can mean “young woman” too.  I think the ancient Rabbis knew there Hebrew.
The other problem is Matthew (who was  Jew) would know Isaiah 7 as well and he thought Jesus’ birth was the fulfillment of Isaiah 7. 
Not that your interpretation is completely wrong.  It is just incomplete.  Correct in what it asserts, but incorrect in what it denies.  Prophetic utterances often have multiple layers.
It isn’t a great sign when a “young woman” has a child.  Certainly the things you mention above partially qualify.  But it doesn’t go far enough.
The other issue is Genesis 3, talks about the “seed” (or in the Septuagint:  the “spermatos”) of the woman ALSO suggesting a Messianic fulfillment that will come.  Women don’t have “spermatos” in a natural sense.  This suggests an upcoming intervention by G-d.  That’s probably what Paul (who studied at the feet of Gamaliel) just matter-of-factly alluded to in Galatians 4:4.
Someone might say:  “Well betulah could have been used if this passage were to refer to “virgin” only”. 
But someone could turn that right around and say:  “Well “naara” could have been used if this passage were to refer to “young woman” only”. 
Perhaps “almah” is the best word used here to denote layers of fulfillment.  One partial fulfillment does not deny a later complete fulfillment.  The prediction of “God with us” could be multidimensional.
There are other aspects too which I could add here but I want to keep it brief.  Hope this helps.
 
 
 
 
 
 

  Quote this in your comment

Reply

drydend April 12, 2013 at 8:04 am

The translators of the modern editions of the septuagint are unknown, especially the books of Isaiah so it is unknown if rabbis translated it. The word parthenos in Greek doesn’t necessarily mean a woman who has had no sexual contact as can be seen from the fact that the septuagint uses that word to refer to Dinah after she had been raped. The idea that the writer of the book of Matthew would have known or understood Isaiah 7 is an assumption, a baseless one, not a conclusion or a strong basis to say that he used Isaiah 7 correctly. The sign in Isaiah 7:14-16 wasn’t just a young woman having a child and a sign doesn’t have to be a miracle, it just has to be visible. There are other signs given by prophets that were not miraculous but were visible indicators of things coming to pass, like how much food would cost when Jerusalem was under siege or delivered from siege. The whole sign is that by the time the child reaches a certain age, the two kings Rezin and Pekah would be gone.

Genesis 3 has not overt textual sign of being messianic at all and there are other places in the Jewish Bible where women have seeds, e.g., Hagar in Genesis 16.

There is no overt sign in any of scripture that dual prophecy exists or partial fulfilments that take hundreds or thousands of years to complete.

So your comments were not helpful but they do reflect how someone can misuse scripture or defend its misuse.

  Quote this in your comment

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: