Indeed. I wonder if they will correct the mistranslation of Isaiah found in Matthew. One bible so far has made the correction in Isaiah, back to what was written in the Masoretic text. BUT, they do leave the error in Matthew! So now, Isaiah reads young woman as it should but Matthew reads as virgin. LOL
Isaiah 7:14
14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el.
Finally a correct translation. How long if ever before the other bibles correct their texts?
The problem is when the Aramaic and the Hebrew texts are translated into Greek. Some mistranslations may be accidental, but some are purely deliberate. A deliberate one:
Isaiah 7:14 from the Tanakh (Jewish Bible from the Hebrew text)
Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel.
Matthew 1:23
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
How did we go from “Young Woman” in the Old Testament to “Virgin” in the New Testament in quoting the same verse?
The word "HaAlmah" (which is in the Hebrew text) means "the young woman", while the word for "virgin" is "Bethulah."
The Hebrew word “HaAlmah” was purposefully mistranslated by the Essenes of Alexandria, Egypt, as “Bethulah” in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek.
According to the King James Version (KJV) the verses says: "...Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and call his name Immanuel." Translators hotly debate the use of the word "virgin" which came from the Hebrew word "almah." Hebraic scholars say "almah" means a "young woman" not a virgin. They further contend that the real Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah." They refer to Gen. 24:43 and Ex. 2:8 which show "almah" means a maid, not virgin.
Who knows Hebrew better, the Hebrews or the Christians? The Hebrews say in their Masoretic text that "almah" should be translated as the young woman, not virgin.
Some scholars further allege that "shall conceive" should have been translated as "is with" child which is in the present tense and shows the prophecy pertains to a woman existing in Isaiah's time.
Other critics of Christianity's claim note that "shall conceive" was translated from "harah" which actually means “has Conceived." They say "harah" (conceived) is the Hebrew perfect tense, which represents past completed action in English.
The Jews, contrary to false tradition, did not translate the Prophets or the Writings into Greek. The Rabbis only translated the Torah. This means that Alexandrian Jews or non-Jews translated the rest of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek much later and the Rabbis from Palestine had nothing to do with it. This explains why pagan traditions crept into the text and the translation.
The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures chose another word in place of “almah-young woman” which conveyed a completely different idea... ”parthenos-virgin.”
71 Rabbis translated the Torah; yet it was not they who translated the sefer naviim (book of prophets)! It was the result of Essene (proto-Christians) authors who translated sefer naviim from Hebrew into the language of the pagans. When the Christian bible was translated to Latin, the mistake was intentionally kept in, even though the original Hebrew text was still available!
Not that it matters, because this isn't even a Messianic prophecy!
Jesus was never referred to as Immanuel in the New Testament, is never called Immanuel except by those who do so in order to fulfill the prophecy, and according to Luke 1:31 was to be called Jesus, not Immanuel.
Was it the 5th century when it was translated to Latin or ealier? I thought the "pagan language" was there first and was mostly edited out when translated to Latin....do I have that backwards?