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.
And it is a translation of pre-existant Jewish scriptures. It was translated in stages over a period of about 150 years. Except for the Pentateuch, most of the books of the LXX are not considered good translations. In fact, some books are not even translations.
The fact that NT authors use is in over 90% of OT references is irrelevant as to the accuracy of the translation. They used what was available in Greek.
The actual BC fragments include parts of only seven books, mostly the Torah and some Minor Prophets. There are only 2 books (Leviticus and Deuteronomy fragments) that are from the 2nd century BC; the other five are from the first. For a complete copy of the Greek OT one must go to the 4th century AD Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and the 5th centiry AD Alexandrinus which are know for their "redact ions".
Only 5% of the Qumran scrolls correspond to LXX type text compared to 60% for the Masoretic.
It does if read Isaiah as prophetic language
Don't hold back, let's see it.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Because the two atonement interpretations are diametrically opposed.