Post-Christian Masoretic text agrees with the pre-Christian Qumran (Dead Sea) Scrolls to a very high degree. They also agree (to a lesser extent) with the Septuagint. Trouble is, pre-Chirtsian Septuagint doesn't exist, except in some fragments spanning more than two centuries. Post-Chritsian era Septuagints also don't exist. What we have is a little bit of one and a little bit of the other...but we really don't know what the "original" Septuagint contained.
The Torah (Pentateuch) portion of the Septuagint agrees very well with the MT, but the rest doesn't. Cerveza's argument about Isa 7:14 is a separate issue, but ti is true that KJV departs form the MT and uses the Septuagint in verse 7:14. This is nothing new in the manipulative doctrinally "adjusted" editions of various Bibles.
But, Even if it is about a "virgin," it is irrelevant because Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus. That much is obvious to anyone who has actually read the whole chapter.
_____
As for Harley's unsuccessful search for the Greek word "victim," Christ is most definitely considered a victim, but you won't find it in the Reformed Bibles and reformed Random Verse Generators because it clashes with the Deformed Protestant theology! So, it's doctrinally inadmissible and therefore expunged. (more biblical manipulations) From the Reformed point of view, God demanded, indeed preordained, Christ as the just propitiation, so how could Christ then be a "victim!"
This may come as a shock to the Paul-worshiping crowd, but it was none other than him who introduced the word hilestarion (Roman 3:25) among other plentiful innovations, which means an expiatory sacrifice or an expiatory victim.
In general, the term "victim" also means "sacrifice" in Greek (thusia, prosphora); also Greek-derived Church Slavonic zhertva, or hebrew pecach. If you think about it, a sin offering was an innocent specimen (by definition a victim) offered in place of the guilty one! The Gospel of Luke makes it very clear that Christ's death was supreme injustice, because he was the last man on earth who deserved to die.
Even the idea that Christ offered himself as ransom as an act of supreme mercy is also an act of supreme injustice, because mercy and justice are diametrically opposite.
All this changed when Anselm (11th century) introduced the ridiculous notion of "satisfaction of divine justice " theology of atonement, making Christ's suffering and death a vicarious satisfaction of the divine "justice."
The Septuagint is know to have existed for about two centuries before Christ. We do know that the inspired writers of the NT quoted from the Septuagint. If you don't believe NT inspiration, that is beyond the scope of Protestant-Catholic debate. Belief in NT inspiration supports the Septuagint. Also, First Century Jewish writers Josephus and Philo both attested to the divine inspiration of the Septuagint.
The Torah (Pentateuch) portion of the Septuagint agrees very well with the MT, but the rest doesn't.
The writings of the Prophets where highly condemnatory. It is no surprising if latter day rabbis would scale back the severity of those curses.
But, Even if it is about a "virgin," it is irrelevant because Isaiah 7 is not about Jesus. That much is obvious to anyone who has actually read the whole chapter.
It does if read Isaiah as prophetic language. Many parts of the bible are written like that. Prophetic visions combine scenes of different events, symbols, and parables in ways that can be confusing. The Risen Christ explained the OT to his Apostles in ways they had never understood before.
The Gospel of Luke makes it very clear that Christ's death was supreme injustice, because he was the last man on earth who deserved to die. [...]
All this changed when Anselm (11th century) introduced the ridiculous notion of "satisfaction of divine justice " theology of atonement, making Christ's suffering and death a vicarious satisfaction of the divine "justice."
Why does it have to be one or the other? I agree that His Crucifixion was a great injustice committed by His betrayers and persecutors, but could it not at the same time have been a sin offering?
Mark 14:21: And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born.
Kosta is absolutely correct. While I don't agree with our Orthodox brothers on their theology, they tend to be consistent and there are reasons why they believe the way the do. I like consistency and I can appreciate their view. That being said, they don't agree with me either. :O)
Catholics on the other hand would like to move from a western model to the eastern model, but it's difficult-especially given all that "infallibility" nonsense of the Pope. Their writings for the past 800 years have slowly been trying to get them there but it is a muddle mess. Why don't they just say, "Oops, we were wrong and the Orthodox were right." and be done with it. It certainly would make my life easier. :O)
Very good, Kosta mou!
Ἔλεον εἰρήνης, θυσίαν αἰνέσεως.
I missed this post. They're coming in a flurries now.
Yes, Kosta, this is predictable from the Orthodox view of "victim". This is the direction the Catholic Church is moving. However, many of those versions that I quoted are derived from international scholars painstakingly researching the text for the correct meaning. In many cases, these are not all Reformed people. I'm perfectly satisfied with the versions.
The Orthodox just published their version of the scriptures (after 2000 years-better late than never). If I can find an on line version I'd be happy to look for the word "victim".