Hugh Fogelman et al
Reading
Isaiah
The
start of Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a
sign,” sets up the whole meaning of.this verse. Why did the author of
Matthew leave this out when he wrote “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.” (Matthew
Issue ONE―The
sign:
Whenever the Hebrew word "ot" (sign) is used, it means something which will come to pass
immediately, not in the
future. Isaiah was talking to King Azah who wanted to see a “sign”. Matthew had
to leave that part of the verse out because he realized that Isaiah was talking
about the present, not the future.
Issue
TWO―The virgin birth.
King
James Version and the Christian Living Bible versions are different than the
original Hebrew Bible regarding the so-called “Virgin Birth”. The original Hebrew makes no claim to any
“Virgin Birth” as the verse reads in Hebrew: “Behold, the young woman (the alma) will become pregnant and bear you a son”. If
Isaiah wanted to say the young woman was a virgin, he would have used the
Hebrew word “betulah” or “betoolah.” The Hebrew word “alma” or “young woman”
has no bearing on whether virginity is present or not. Just because a married woman is young, her
age does not imply being a virgin or not.
It was the custom for young women to marry and usually it’s a young
woman that bears children. In other
words, in the Hebrew language there is no relationship between the word alma
and virgin – it is like apples and oranges.
Issue
THREE―The name Immanuel.
Christians
say this name applies to Jesus. If that is so, why didn’t Mary, his mother name
Jesus Immanuel? If not his mother, why didn’t his brothers and sisters call him
Immanuel? Or, anyone in his community? Immanuel was not even a nick name for
Jesus. Did any of Jesus’ disciples call him Immanuel? The issue of the identity
of the boy who, according to that verse, will be born and named Immanuel has
received a great deal of attention. Some sages say Immanu’el was either King
Azah or King Hezekiah son, while the majority of our sages say Immanu’el was
the name of Isaiah’s third son. Isaiah’s first son - She'ar Yashuv, in Hebrew means - A Remnant Shall
Return. Isaiah’s second son - Maher Shalal Hash Baz, in Hebrew means - Quicken Booty
Hasten Plunder, and Isaiah’s third son – Immanuel, in Hebrew means – God
with us. As you can tell, each son was a sign of the times.
Christians
insist that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophetic foretelling of the birth of the
Christian messiah, Jesus, that would occur more than 700 years into the future,
relative to the time these words were uttered by the prophet Isaiah. In other
words – A DUAL PROPHECY – a “catchy” phrase that anyone can use to make a
defense of any unsupported concept. The primary reason for this claim is the
fact that this verse is allegedly 'quoted' in the New Testament by the author
of the Gospel of Matthew,
If
Matthew was correct in his misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible, then indeed,
a virgin shall give birth. When? Within nine months? Within nine years? Within
nine hundred years?
Think
about it, why Isaiah would be concerned of events 700 years later when the
threat of death and destruction were preeminent in Isaiah’s time when he was
talking to King Ahaz. And if this is a dual prophecy ― who was the first
part of this dual prophesy? Who was this
“OTHER” virgin birth?
Logically,
this would indeed make news and the prophets, Isaiah, Amos and Hosea, all
contemporary writers of this era, would have written something about this once
in a life-time event ― a virgin birth.