Is Isaiah 7:14 really about Jesus?

I don't get it, is Isaiah 7:14 about King Hezekiah or Jesus?

My Jewish friend says the word "almah" meaning young woman of child bearing age who may or may not be married, not virgin, and that the latter rendering of it was a mistranslation of the Hebrew into the Greek and that the Gospels were relying on the Greek translation and made a huge mistake.

He also says it doesn't even fit the context for Jesus either and I mean if you do read the verse in context it does look to be about Hezekiah and not the Messiah.

15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the Child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings. 17 The Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon you and your people and your father’s house—days that have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah.”

18 And it shall come to pass in that day
That the Lord will whistle for the fly
That is in the farthest part of the rivers of Egypt,
And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
19 They will come, and all of them will rest
In the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks,
And on all thorns and in all pastures.

20 In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor,
With those from beyond [j]the River, with the king of Assyria,
The head and the hair of the legs,
And will also remove the beard.

21 It shall be in that day
That a man will keep alive a young cow and two sheep;
22 So it shall be, from the abundance of milk they give,
That he will eat curds;
For curds and honey everyone will eat who is left in the land.

23 It shall happen in that day,
That wherever there could be a thousand vines
Worth a thousand shekels of silver,
It will be for briers and thorns.
24 With arrows and bows men will come there,
Because all the land will become briers and thorns.

25 And to any hill which could be dug with the hoe,
You will not go there for fear of briers and thorns;
But it will become a range for oxen
And a place for sheep to roam.

Attached: Beale-ISAIAH.jpg (682x519, 430.55K)

Other urls found in this thread:

newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah
pastebin.com/4HDAsUBK
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Attached: dar.png (150x150, 24.19K)

newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm
Read from 77

I'd like actual arguments please.

Thank you, I shall look into it.

1. The Jews were the ones who translated the Tanakh into Greek and created the Septuagint. They translated it as "virgin" because at the time that is what the undisputed translation was, they understood it to mean specifically "virgin" and indeed the word "almah" is used several times in the Old Testament to refer to a virgin.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almah

2. The Jews later changed their interpretation to "young woman" AFTER Jesus time because they knew it gave him too much credibility as the messiah.

3. Old Testament prophecies can often refer to two different things. In this case Isaiah 7 is both talking about King Hezekaiah and also prophesying about Jesus. There's no reason it has to be one or the other, many other prophecies in the Old Testament refer to the times the prophet lived in while also providing some insight into the nature of the coming messiah.

Don't trust the masoretic text. It was corrupted. The Septuagint is accurate

Attached: lxx_vs_mt3.jpg (769x993, 265.81K)

Try Isaiah 53 if you're having a hard time figuring out where that Book is about Jesus Christ.

Is the KJV version of Isaiah based more on the masoretic or on the septuagint?

Jewish translations of scripture are irrelevant because they make up their own modern definitions. The reason why the jewish translation says something wrong is because of that, not because of anything to do with the original Hebrew/Syriack Chaldee language sources. So then it's dishonest to place a jewish translation side by side with a faithful translation as if there were no difference.

The KJV correctly translates the word in Isaiah 7:14, but you didn't mention it there. So why did you simply leave it out there and not put it in the other column?

As for the rest of them, all there. Just because someone made an edited version of the OT (the modern LXX) to line up with NT quotes doesn't actually make it more accurate. Here is what they were really pointing to:

Psalm 148:2 (KJV)
Praise ye him, all his angels: praise ye him, all his hosts.

Isaiah 29:18 (KJV)
And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.

Psalm 22:16
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Zephaniah 3:12
I will also leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust in the name of the LORD.
—

The modern LXX takes parts of the NT and introduces them to the OT. The greatest example of this is when the modern LXX writer took the number 75 from Acts 7:14 and implanted it into both Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5, but NOT in Deuteronomy 10:22 where it still says "70" therefore making it inconsistent with itself. The modern LXX is corrupt because people with access to the NT altered it to fit that in various ways.

The original Old Testament, still in the original language, actually says 70 persons in all three places (Genesis 46:27, Exodus 1:5 and Deut. 10:22), making it consistent and unaltered. No one had an opportunity to slip anything in, God actively protected his original word from change throughout the ages.

The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. - Isaiah 40:8

Some more scripture quotes:

Psalm 72:17
His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.

Psalm 8:5-6
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

Psalm 34:20
He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.

Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

Isaiah 53:5
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Proverbs 30:4-6
Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

What are you talking about? The Dead Sea scrolls prove that the LXX was translated from a reliable manuscript tradition. Given the fact that the MT omits numerous passages concerning Jesus, that the LXX was used almost universally by Christians until Jerome in the 4th century, and that the MT is literally what kike Talmudists use, the LXX is clearly the inspired one here. The kikes literally made the MT to fit their own agenda in order to counter Christianity. And this isn't polemic, this is literally what they did. The kikes based it from a simply bad manuscript tradition and made it into a completely uninspired piece of garbage that abominations like the KJV are based off of, although when the KJV translators found problems in the MT they went back to the LXX for reference as in the case of Isaiah 7:14.

Is there a good translation of the septuagint into English?

Attached: OrthodoxStudyBible.jpg (257x388, 23.58K)

Muslim user interjecting here for just a moment out of curiosity.

You guys are basically admitting your scriptures are corrupt, so why do you still believe in them? Believe the Qur'an which corrects all the mistakes in the Bible and is final revelation of Allah (SWT).

Go away and don't come back. Don't do taqiyya here.

Have you considered the possibility that some translators weren't moved by the Holy Spirit? Probably not, given that your text most certainly wasn't written by men working for God the first time it was put to paper.

Literally look at the image posted.

Psalm 22:16 the word “pierced” has been replaced by “lion” in the MT thus denying that the Messiah had to die for our sins.

Isaiah 53:11 the word “light of life” is omitted by the MT thus denying the resurrection of Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:8 “Angels Of Elohim” replaced with “children of Israel.” in MT.

Jeremiah 10 verses 6 and 7 have been added in the MT.

Isaiah 19:18 “city of righteousness” changed to the “city of the sun” in MT (or in some versions “the city of destruction")

Isaiah 61:1 “recovery of sight to the blind.”. Omitted in MT denying the miracles of Christ.

In Psalm 40:6 “a body you have prepared for me” was replaced by “you opened my ears." in the MT, thus the MY denies the incarnation of Christ.

Deuteronomy 32:43 ‘Let all the messengers of Elohim worship him.’” Omitted in MT.

Deuteronomy 32:43. Moses’ song is shortened in the MT to deny the deity of Christ.

Isaiah 7:14. “Virgin” replaced by “young woman" to deny the virgin birth of Jesus.

The New Testament uses the LXX, even your beloved KJV has contradictions in it because of this:

Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14 – LXX; behold, a “virgin” shall conceive. MT; behold, a “young woman” shall conceive.

Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3 – LXX; make “His paths straight.” MT; make “level in the desert a highway.”

Matt. 9:13; 12:7 / Hosea 6:6 – LXX; I desire “mercy” and not sacrifice. MT; I desire “goodness” and not sacrifice.

Matt. 15:9; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13 – LXX; teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. MT; a commandment of men (not doctrines).

Mark 7:6-8 – Jesus quotes Isaiah 29:13 from the LXX, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”

Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5 LXX; crooked be made straight, rough ways smooth, shall see salvation. MT; omits these phrases.

Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1 LXX; and recovering of sight to the blind. MT; the opening of prison to them that are bound.

John 12:38 / Isaiah 53:1 – LXX; who has believed our “report?” MT; who has believed our “message?”

Acts 7:14 / Gen. 46:27; Deut. 10:22 – LXX; Stephen says “seventy-five” souls went down to Egypt. MT; “seventy” people went.

Acts 7:43 / Amos 5:26-27 LXX; the tent of “Moloch” and star of god of Rephan. MTT; “your king,” shrine, and star of your god.

Acts 13:41 / Habakkuk 1:5 – LXX; you “scoffers” and wonder and “perish.” MTT; you “among the nations,” and “be astounded.”

Acts 15:17 / Amos 9:12 – LXX; the rest (or remnant) of “men.” MT; the remnant of “Edom.”

Rom. 2:24 / Isaiah 52:5 LXX; the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. MT; blasphemed (there is no mention of the Gentiles).

Rom. 3:14 / Psalm 10:7 LXX; whose mouth is full of curses and “bitterness.” MT; cursing and “deceit and oppression.”

Rom. 9:27 / Isaiah 10:22 LXX; only a remnant of them “will be saved.” MT; only a remnant of them “will return.”

Rom. 11:27 / Isaiah 27:9 LXX; when I take away their sins. MT; this is all the fruit of taking away his sin.

Rom. 15:12 / Isaiah 11:10 – LXX; the root of Jesse…”to rule the Gentiles.” MT; stands for an ensign. There is nothing about the Gentiles.

1 Cor. 1:19 / Isaiah 29:14 – LXX; “I will destroy” the wisdom of the wise. MTT; wisdom of their wise men “shall perish.”

1 Cor. 15:55 / Hosea 13:14 LXX; O death, where is thy “sting?” MT; O death, where are your “plagues?”

Heb. 1:6 / Deut. 32:43 – LXX; let all the angels of God worship Him. MT; the Masoretic text omits this phrase from Deut. 32:43.

Heb. 10:5 / Psalm 40:6 – LXX; “but a body hast thou prepared for me.” MT; “mine ears hast thou opened.”

James 4:6 / Prov. 3:34 LXX; God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. MT; He scoffs at scoffers and gives grace to the lowly.

1 Pet. 2:22 / Isaiah 53:9 – LXX; he “committed no sin.” MT; he “had done no violence.”

There's even more but it's just too numerous to list.

I would use the Church Fathers but you're a heretic so you wouldn't count them worthy.


Maybe so but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be consider. Kikes are evil spawns from Satan.


Can I have a source on this? Are you also saying the New Testament is wrong? Wow I thought you KJV lovers were all about Sola Fide Bible is literal absolutely infallible in science and history and everything. Guess not?

You also know that there are two Dead Seas Scrolls which have this 75 tradition right? Again, confirmation that the Septuagint is based on a reliable manuscript tradition. See 4Q13 and 4Q1.

...

...

If the word of God becomes corrupt beyond repair then God is incompetent and his prophets unreliable. Islam is predicated on God being inept. Jesus revelation was lost within his life time or shortly after in Islam. And his closest apostles are unreliable?
Our scriptures are fine , despite minor translation arguments. You believe revelations get to totally lost and corrupted. Allah is inept in your deen.

isaiah 7 is about reconciling the scattered and divided house of israel which at this point of the prophesy has been divided into judah and samaria following the days of the wars between rehoboam (judah) and jeroboam (ephraim, v. 17).
samaria (represented metonymally as ephraim, tribe of the son of joseph who received the right hand blessing by isaac in genesis 48) by this point is in assyrian captivity and that Jesus will reconcile the dispersion and any who believes in Christ.

also the synoptic gospel of matthew which thematically emphasizes Jesus’ fulfillment of the old testament prophecies references this verse in isaiah 7 and 8 in matthew 1:23 (as emmanuel being the greek transliteration of the hebrew rendering of “immanuel” in isaiah)

Don't ever pay attention to this guy, he thinks that Oriegen wrote LXX even though in this very thred there is contrary evidence and evidence for Jewish corruption via Justin Martyr

OH HO HO HO HO

You didn't see my post:

Already answered all of it.

No, the 75 of Stephen doesn't include Joseph himself or his two sons. Joseph didn't call himself into Egypt (see Acts 7:14) or his two sons, they were already there. Meanwhile, the list in Genesis 46 includes Joseph (66 plus Jacob, Joseph and his two sons).

If you take out Joseph and the people who weren't even born in Genesis 46, and then add the wives (who were NOT counted in Genesis 46, see verse 26, but were counted by Stephen) then you get 75. Therefore both the OT and NT are correct, but someone tried to "fix" the number in the OT in their translation to match the NT.

The modern version of the LXX says 75 in Genesis 46:26 and Exodus 1:5, but then they forgot to make it say 75 in Deuteronomy 10:22, so it still says 70 there. All versions correctly say 70 in Deuteronomy 10:22, but Septuagint was edited to match Acts 7:14 in Genesis 46 and Exodus 1; they merely forgot about Deuteronomy 10:22 and left it as 70. It was some shoddy work.

Except that the Dead Sea Scrolls say 75 as well and they predate the NT by over 200 years. The original number was 75 in the Hebrew, showing once again that the Septuagint is correct

Go to 27 mins in this video, or watch the whole thing to learn why the Septuagint is definitive.

Hebrew doesn't have a word that solely means virgin. It has two words, almah and betulah, that refer to young women most of the time, but can mean virgin in certain contexts. Isaiah 7:14 is one of those contexts.

pastebin.com/4HDAsUBK

I'm just gonna make a pastebin because I've already dealt with this video multiple times and I don't feel like making a multipost again. I should probably make a copy-paste one of these days for the fallacious chart that was already posted here as well, because it keeps getting posted despite all of its mistakes and outright misrepresentations. The KJV is correct in Isaiah 7:14 because it translates the Hebrew text correctly. So why doesn't that register in your head? Why keep posting it when it's so easily shown wrong?

If some guy took some piece of the New Testament and incorporated it into his book, would that "prove" that the apostles quoted his book? No. It would prove he had the wrong motives.

It gets worse. From the same person in the video.

The KJV is a terrible and inaccurate translation that used corrupted texts as its base. It's not surprising that the KJV has many errors, not only throughout Isaiah but in all of the books of both the Old and New Testaments. Get a Greek Interlinear Bible if you want to see just how much of a clusterwinnie the pooh the KJV is

i like the kjv.