What does that prove? Who were they to decide what is "divinely inspired" and what is not. Septuagint was rejected by the rabbis in Jamnia c AD 90. The legend has it that 72 rabbis, commissioned by the Alexandrian despot, supposedly translated the Torah in one day. Whatever...
(Micah 5:2)
That's not Isaiah. You wrote that Isaiah predicated that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. I am quoting from your post 15,745
That is just plain false and misleading. Isaiah never mentions Bethlehem anywhere in his writings.
Post Babylonian Jews believed in, and expected the messiah, and their scriptures prophecy a messiah. But there is nothing in the Old Testament itself that specifically identifies that messiah as Jesus of Nazareth.
One has to reach for the New Testament, written after the fact and with the intention to "connect the dots" and identify Jesus as the messiah expected in the OT. Trouble is—Jesus does not fit the OT requirements of the messiah, except that he was Jewish.
Isaiah 7...and the "virgin"
The Hebrew has the exact word for a virgin and it's not the same as the "young woman". The OT uses the word for "virgin" on more than one occasion to make sure there is no doubt what is meant. Obviously, if Isaiah wanted to make sure everyone knew he was talking about a virgin he would used the same word for "virgin" used throughout the OT.
Even Paul, who quotes mostly from the Septuagint, speaks of Jesus as being born "of a woman" (Galatians 4:4), not of a virgin.
The Septuagint indicates that translators understood the Hebrew word to be the equivalent of the "virgin" meaning for maiden
Because in Greek the distinction is not as clear as in Hebrew. The word "betulah" means a virgin, period. In Greek "parthenos" is a bit more "expansive" in use, including one's daughter of marriageable age, and even males who are remain "clean." No one in his right mind introduces his daughter as "this is my virgin"!
The Hebrew word "'almah" used in Isaiah 7:14 means all that and also a young married woman, so not necessarily a virgin. Isiah 7:14 does not claim the child born of a young woman is born supernaturally, or that somehow a young woman (out of wedlock) became pregnant without losing her virginity.
The context of Isaiah 7 clearly shows that the virgin theory of 7:14 is an out-of-context Christian fabrication. This is particularly obvious since Isaiah also says that his suffering servant will have physical offspring and will be granted more years...
However, because no faith will ever admit to being wrong, even when everything points to it, lie and deny is the order of the day. When stuck in a corner, the religious either rationalize a fantastic answer, or alter existing scriptures (i.e. 1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 5:7, or John 8:1-11), or conveniently produce new "scripture," written after the fact, to support their claim, or to account for new situations (i.e. Gospel of John, 2 Peter).
One could say the same about the faith of atheism. You forgot that the pre-Christian and authoritative Septuagint OT translates that the mother of the Messiah would be a virgin. That was not after-the-fact. You also did not respond to my point that no other interpretation makes sense in the context of God specifically stating that the birth would be a special "sign." How would an ordinary birth to a young, naturally impregnated woman be "a sign of the Lord thy God either unto the depth of hell, or unto the height above."?
Other than to quibble, you did not respond to the OT prophesy that Christ would be born in Bethlehem.
If you could point to any authorities rejecting the Septuagint before Christ, that might count for something. However, it should be obvious that rabbis in AD 90 would be biased against the Septuagint by its clearly fulfilled prophesies of Jesus as the Christ-Messiah.