Replies

“Why would a young woman conceiving and giving birth qualify as a ‘sign’ from ‘the Lord Himself’”? It would to make more sense for it to be translated as “virgin” in this case if only because it would hardly be unusual for a “young woman” to have a child! I’m sure there are other arguments as well.

Therein lies the rub. Skeptics (or even Jews who do not accept Jesus as Messiah ) would argue that this particular prophecy of Isaiah is REALLY referring to an actual historical woman who gave birth to a boy who was REALLY named Emmanuel.

Hence the following texts after verse 14 --

15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

In other words skeptics and unbelieving Jews would say that it is a PURELY HISTORICAL statement made by Isaiah unrelated to Jesus Christ. Christians are simply force-fitting the historical statement made to make it fit Jesus.

This is a two-fold prophesy. The first being the immediate, and the second being in the future. IIRC, I think there are several other examples of immediate/future prophesies in the OT, but I don't have the time to look them up for you.

The reason that Christians use it in the context of a virgin is that the followers of Jesus Himself (who were Jewish) used it in this same context, i.e. Matthew 1:23. Matthew also goes on to explain that Emmanuel means "God with us", and Jesus, as God Incarnate, is God with us (mankind).

As I understand it, the scholars using the word "parthenos" (virgin) ran into no controversy from the Jewish community whatsoever during the centuries when the Septuagint was the, "the" authorized translation. It was completely and universally accepted as accurate.

After the 1st century AD, some of the Jewish community decided to "de-authorize" the Septuagint because it gave such unambiguous authority to the Jewish-Christian belief that the prophecies were fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

So the problem wasn't that the Christians "force-fitted" the translation, but that the A.D.-era Jewish community "retrofitted" the translation.

If this were not so, why did they previously accept the word "parthenos"?