Perhaps you could explain away this verse as well:
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.
You stated: Most modern Christian Bibles have corrected this erroneous translation (”virgin” in Isaiah 7:14), and their Bibles now correctly translate this Hebrew word as “the young woman.”
To which modern “Christian” translations do you refer? I just checked around 10 of them, and only one used young woman, which could or could not mean virgin — the rest translate the Hebrew word to virgin.
“There is no instance where it can be proved that ‘almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where ‘almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac.” (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)
You further posted: The author of the first Gospel deliberately mistranslated the Hebrew word ha’almah as “a virgin.” This Hebrew word ha’almah does not mean “a virgin.” It means “the young woman,” with no implication of virginity.
Actually, ha’almah is used 7 times in the Old Testament. 4 times it is translated as virgin in the KJV, twice as maid, and once as damsel.
Gen 24:43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw [water], and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink;
Exodus 2:8 And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her, Go. And the maid went and called the child’s mother.
Psalms 68:25 The singers went before, the players on instruments followed after; among them were the damsels playing with timbrels.
Proverbs 30:19 The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with a maid.
Song of Songs 1:3 Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee.
Song of Songs 6:8 There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Explain away? It is called proper exegesis.
..."whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
From everlasting is a a bad translation of the Hebrew, it should be, from ancient days. This means the Messiah, will be of the Davidic line, David being a Bethlehemite. Many Christian bibles render it that way as well.
Regarding Isaiah 7:
From Hugh Fogelman:
In "Old Testament" days pagan gentiles had a strong tradition of belief in virgin-born savior-gods, all of whom existed centuries before the birth of Jesus. Bible writers, who were promoting Jesus of Nazareth as the Jews' long-awaited messiah, struggled mightily to fit their stories about Jesus to what they believed were Hebrew Bible prophecies about the coming messiah. In this essay we will provide information which will suggest that these writers mistakenly believed a verse about the ordinary and imminent birth of a child was a prophecy that the future messiah would be born of a virgin.
Falsely Translated Isaiah Verses Predict Virgin Birth The verse that is the heart of the controversy is found in the book of Isaiah.
Correct Translation "Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the young woman is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel"
False Translation "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Matthew's Verses "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel" (Matthew 1:21-23)
Thus, the woman--not a virgin--is already carrying the child whose birth is imminent; thus, the Isaiah verse cannot refer to a future conception. We see above that Isaiah was not speaking of a messiah which would appear eight hundred years later; he was referring to the present. The child he spoke of was already conceived; the child, which would soon be born, would be a sign--a good omen--to a king about to engage in battle.
Note that the name of the child to be conceived was to be "Immanuel," not "Jesus" [4]. In the entire New Testament the name Immanuel appears only once, in Matthew's verse, where he quotes the false Isaiah prophecy. More than a thousand times the name "Jesus" appears in the New Testament; never once is the savior from Nazareth called "Immanuel". One would think that if Jesus was ever referred to as Immanuel, then somebody else besides Matthew would have known about it; Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or Peter would surely have mentioned the name a few times, but they mentioned it not once.
Why did Matthew think that Jesus was called Immanuel? Perhaps Matthew, a Greek Jew who didn't know the first thing about the Hebrew language, thought that the name Jesus was the Greek version of Immanuel, which means "God is with us"; but it's not, Jesus is Hellenized Greek for Joshua, which means "God is salvation".
Immanuel Is Born in Isaiah
Additional evidence that the prophet in Isaiah referred to an event soon to be realized, and not an event in Bethlehem eight hundred years later, may be found in the very next chapter in Isaiah (see table, below), where a child called "Immanuel" is born.
As proof that the boys in these two Isaiah chapters are one and the same, we may note below in the table below, both chapters mention the conquest of the lands of two kings "before the boy" reaches a certain age; this key phrase links the two chapters to the same child, Immanuel.
The unborn and born child in the two Isaiah chapters are further linked by the appearance of the name Immanuel in both places. Immanuel, which in Hebrew means "God is with us" is a name which one may be sure was carefully chosen by the prophet to reassure the king that God would be on his side. Thus, in the second chapter we see the exclamation, "O Immanuel", which is Isaiah's proud announcement that the child was born and represented a sign that "God is with us".
Before Birth of Immanuel "The young woman has conceived and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel. 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." (Isaiah 7:14-16)
After Birth of Immanuel "And she conceived and gave birth to a son. Before the boy knows how to say My father or My mother, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off ......O Immanuel." (Isaiah 8:3-8)
Immanuel Was Not Perfect
Another reason for doubting that the child spoken of in Isaiah is the future Jesus Christ is that Isaiah notes that there will be a waiting period before the child will know the difference between right and wrong. This would not make sense if the child referred to by Isaiah were actually the future son of God: How could a God-entity not know the difference between right and wrong? Since the perfect son of a perfect God could not have been imperfect at birth, we have one more reason for believing that Isaiah was not prophesying the coming of the future messiah.
Conclusion
It seems possible that the author of Matthew based his virgin-birth story on the incorrectly-translated verses in Isaiah because he believed--or pretended to believe-- that the prophet in Isaiah was referring to a future virgin-birth, and not describing an already-pregnant young woman. Matthew apparently made three other mistakes, too.
(1) He evidently thought that Jesus was the Hellenized form of Immanuel, but he was wrong. (2) He apparently overlooked the fact that the child referred to in the alleged virgin-birth prophecy in Isaiah was born two chapters later. (3) He may have failed to understand that the child in that prophecy was to have a period of learning before he knew the difference between right and wrong and, which implied that the child couldn't have been the future son of God.
When all of this evidence is viewed objectively, it is hard to avoid that conclusion that Matthew was simply mistaken. This will be no problem for those who don't believe that every story in the New Testament must be true in order that one may hold the belief that Jesus is God. However, for apologists, these apparent inconsistencies present a very large problem.
To fully harmonize these apparent problems, apologists must explain these inconsistencies:
1. Jesus was not called "Immanuel," except just once, by Matthew.
2. The "prophesied" messiah would have to wait until he knew right from wrong.
3. The child referred to in Isaiah 6 was apparently born two chapters later.
4. The child-omen to a king living in 800 BCE would be Jesus in 30 CE.
5. The word "ha-almah" means "young woman," not "virgin."
6. The word "harah" is past tense, not future tense, and means "conceived."
BUT here is a SEVENTH overlooked by all other NT critics.
"THE" article is in the texts which CLEARLY meant that "THE young woman" was KNOWN to both the King and ISAIAH. They BOTH knew who the young woman in question was 800 years earlier.