Replies

Properly translated the verse refers to a young woman with child, rather than a virgin who shall conceive.

If this is true, that would mean that almost all popular English translations of this verse from King James to New American Standard to New International Version are improper translations ??

Yes they are. I think I can give an even simpler example from this past week's Torah portion. Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dreams to mean that there will be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of ra-ah. EVERYONE from King James to Everett Fox translates ra-ah as "famine." But it cannot mean famine, for if it did Joseph would have subverted the will of G-d. There was no famine in Egypt. There was plenty to eat because Joseph stockpiled grain. What there was was drought. This must be the meaning of the word ra-ah in the text. (BTW, when Everett Fox pooh-pooh'd this analysis, my Harvard educated rabbi said Fox did so because he didn't think of it himself.)

I have a Zondervan (Christian Publisher) Interlinear translation of the Bible. In the introduction to the volume with Isaiah, they include this in the Introduction:

How Not to Use the NIVIHEOT*
Above all, no one should attempt to use this volume to criticize another translation or to "prove" a point of interpretation. As mentioned above, the vocabulary is that of the NIV. The appearance of Hebrew on the page imparts no additional authority to the definition of any given word.
For example, in Isaiah 7:14, because the NIV translators chose "the virgin" to translate the Hebrew word ha-alma [ML/NJ transliteration, Hebrew characters in quoted text], the interlinear translation reflects this choice rather than "the young woman" which might be the better option linguistically, contextually, and theologically. ...
*New International Version Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament

Where the words "the virgin" appear in the interlinear translation, there is a footnote directing readers to this comment in the introduction quoted above.

The word following ha-alma in the Isaiah text is ha-rah, which means pregnant. Just get a Hebrew-English dictionary and check it out. (Adjectives often follow the noun they modify in Hebrew. I really don't think there is any question about this.)

And none of what I say here should be taken as any sort of refutation of what is written in the Christian Bible. But sometimes people in their zeal to prove what they believe, point to things that aren't there.

ML/NJ

I find it odd that you respond to an off-handed statement, rather than direct a comment towards the translation and use of the word by the Septuagint (not assumed to be inspired, of course) and by Matthew (inspired, at least in the Christian tradition).

Also, while the English translations are imperfect, I would not say that they are improper, especially when it comes to Isaiah 7:14.

But sometimes people in their zeal to prove what they believe, point to things that aren't there.

I completely agree. Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 53 are perfect examples of Christians making morons of themselves to prove a point. Denying the PLAIN MEANING, they appear to be grasping at straws.

Better to state that Isaiah 7:14 clearly says ALMA, and that this could be a virgin as the LXX indicates (instead of beating Jews up for not seeing it their way). Likewise, ignoring the plain text of Isaiah 52, where the "servant" is clearly defined as "Israel My servant" and pretending that it does not say this. Rather, admit that the text does in fact say that Isaiah 53 (a continuation of ch 52) is about Israel - which does not preclude it being about Israel's chief representative, Messiah.