Isaiah 7:14 States -
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Firstly ... you did not provide any evidence as to HOW this is a wrong translation. Thats quite misleading. I will refute this right here...
The Hebrew word i want to look at is Almah ... I want to clarify some things about this scripture and the Hebrew translation...
===============================================
The virgin birth (more correctly, "virginal conception") of Jesus is clearly taught in the New Testament (Matthew 1:18–25; Luke 1:26–35). According to Matthew 1:22,23, it was in fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14*: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin [‘almah] will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel."
The focus of this article is to see whether the Hebrew word ‘almah is best translated virgin. The question may seem impious, but even a staunchly conservative translation like the NASB, in the margin, gives the alternate translation maiden. Does ‘almah mean virgin? If it does not, is there a Hebrew word which clearly does? If so, why did Isaiah not use it? The answer to the first question is no; to the second, yes. The answer to the third question will grow out of the discussion of the first two, as well as a look at the context of Isaiah 7:14.
Reliable lexicons all say that ‘almah means maiden, young woman, young woman of marriageable age. The idea of virginity is neither affirmed nor denied by the word. It is, rather, an inclusive word for a young adolescent female; it occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3,6:8; Isaiah 7:14). There is no clear Old Testament example for the meaning "married woman," though some commentators suggest one "newly married" as a possible meaning. That the word can include the idea of virginity is clear from its use in connection with the yet unmarried Rebekah who is called a "maiden" (‘almah) in Genesis 24:43, but a "virgin" (bethulah) previously in verse 16. "Virgin" is then followed by an explanatory note: "and no man had relations with her." This is the first occurrence of the word bethulah in the Hebrew Bible; it is significant that at this early stage an explanation of the word is given. An examination of the more than 10 occurrences of bethulah in the Old Testament shows that it, and not ‘almah, correctly conveys the meaning "virgin." (See, for example, Exodus 22:16,17; Deuteronomy 22:19,23,28; Judges 19:24.)
Why then does Isaiah 7:14 use the word ‘almah? The answer lies in the historical circumstances surrounding the giving of the promise. It was made to Ahaz, king of Judah, at a time when Syria and the northern kingdom of Israel were threatening to invade his land and set up their own king (verses 1–6). The Lord told Ahaz this would not happen and encouraged him to believe it (verses 7–9). The Lord even encouraged Ahaz to ask for a sign, which he refused to do (verses 10–13). Then follows the statement, "The Lord Himself will give you a sign" (verse 14).
Isaiah 7:14 is a good example of what some call double reference—a prophecy that will be fulfilled both in the near future and in the distant future. Two Old Testament examples illustrate this.
The Book of Daniel speaks of the abomination of desolation, which will take place (9:27,11:31,12:11). This was fulfilled initially in the second century B.C. when Antiochus Epiphanes, the Seleucid king of Syria, invaded Jerusalem and sacrificed a pig on the altar of the Jewish temple. Yet Jesus spoke of the abomination of desolation as yet to come (Matthew 24:15).
A second example is found in what is often called the Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:12–16). The offspring of David who is promised is certainly Solomon, who "shall build a house for My name" (verse 13) but who will also be guilty of iniquity (verse 14). Yet the covenant has elements that cannot apply to Solomon, for the Lord says, "I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever" (verse 13), and "Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever" (verse 16).
In Isaiah 7:14, a double fulfillment is intended, and this is precisely why the more inclusive word ‘almah is used since it may include the idea of virginity but not necessarily. There has been and forever will be only one Virgin Birth. If our passage used the word bethulah, then the Child promised in the near future would have to be virgin born as well as a Child in the distant future. I quote from the Beacon Bible Commentary:
"The Bible affirms only one Virgin Birth, not two, as would be the case if we both accept the historical accuracy of Isaiah 7 and at the same time insist that ‘almah here must be translated ‘virgin."’
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the identity of the ‘almah in the immediate fulfillment of the promise. Suggestions include Isaiah’s wife, Ahaz’s wife, or someone else of the royal household.
Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 from the Septuagint, not from the Hebrew text. For reasons best known to the translators of the Septuagint, they rendered ‘almah as "virgin" (parthenos) only in this passage and in Genesis 24:43, where the context already spoke of Rebekah as a virgin. In the other occurrences it is rendered more accurately by neanis (young woman, maiden) four times and neotis (youth) once. Even though the Septuagint is often a free translation and cannot be placed on a par with the inspired Hebrew text, perhaps it was providential that its translators selected "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14.
Concerning the name of the prophesied Child—Immanuel (‘immanuel)—which means "God with us," the birth of the Child in Isaiah’s day was to be a sign (‘oth) that God was with His people and would bring deliverance. The name did not necessarily mean that the Child was God, since the Old Testament contains more than 110 personal names that are compounded with the word God ‘(El). Yet when applied to Christ it, of course, speaks of His deity. Two chapters later is another very familiar prophecy: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us"; and this promised One is called "Mighty God" and "Eternal Father" (Isaiah 9:6). The Broadman Bible Commentary states it well:
"In the fullness of time…this ancient prophecy (Isaiah 7:14) was transposed to a higher key, and the messianic reign was inaugurated at the birth of Jesus. The promise of God’s presence with His people (Immanuel) was uniquely fulfilled in the advent of His Son."
*Scripture quotations are from the New American Standard Bible.
Anthony D. Palma
===============================================
Also read the following, it answers your questions. Sorry i have to give you what other's say, others explain it better than me. This is very contraversial subject, it cannot be dismissed simply by saying it's a mistranslation, you obviously dont know much about the Bible, thats why your quick in falling...
Ha Alma
Robert S. Fritzius - 305 Hillside Drive Starkville, MS
On page 213 of Worlds in Collision (MacMillan 1950) Velikovsky says:
Isaiah appeared before King Ahaz and offered him a sign, on the earth or "in the height above." Ahaz refused: "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord" (7:12).
This sign from the Lord was intended to give Ahaz the courage to resist an ultimatim to throw open the gates of Jerusalem to northern invaders.
Velikovsky goes on to discuss selected aspects of upcoming devastations, (that he attributes to inter-planetary encounters) which are detailed in subsequent passages of Isaiah. He does not, however, address Isaiah's rejoinder to Ahaz's rejection of God's offer for a sign, to wit:
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14 KJV)
Keep in mind that even though mainstream Christianity holds this passage in high regard as a distant prophecy of the birth of Jesus it is also of importance to develop an understanding of what the very short term prophecy to Ahaz meant.
Isaiah had just relayed an offer from God to Ahaz regarding a "keep the faith" sign which Ahaz would be compelled to admit was outside the control of men. (It is doubtful that he would take Isaiah's word that such and such young lady was indeed a virgin, nor that he would be willing to wait months for the confirmation. He needed to know right away.) Ahaz had been given two categories to choose from: (1) a sign in the depths below or (2) a sign in the heights above. Choices from the first category could include things like: an earthquake at the fourth hour on friday; the ground splitting wide open a safe distance away on command; the dead sea drying up abruptly; etc. From the second category he could have his pick from things like: fire falling from heaven; an explosion on the moon; or a tornado standing still over some specified location for a specified time; etc.
My view of verse 7:14 is that God decided to give Ahaz a sign from category two, from the height above. (Velikovsky apparently was pushing that view too. He places the phrase "in the height above" in quotes.) I say this in part because the middle part of verse 7:14 should properly be translated as:
Behold The Virgin shall conceive,...
not
Behold a virgin shall conceive, ...
The Hebrew word 'ALMAH translated as "virgin" is immediately preceeded by the definite article HA. We have HA'ALMAH. "The Virgin" is a better translation.
I suggest that the sign intended for Ahaz, concerned something in the heavens, known unambiguously to both Isaiah and Ahaz as "The Virgin."
If so, what was "The Virgin" of Isaiah's day? This is a rhetorical question.
In his book "The Hebrew Goddess" (1978) Raphael Patai makes the following statements which are very parallel with Velikovsky's version of how the ancient world perceived Venus for a thousand years or so starting with the Exodus. (He does not mention Velikovsky.)
On the goddess of love and war:
Her name varied from culture to culture--Inanna in Sumer, Ishtar in Akkad, Anath in Canaan--yet her character remained the same for centuries, even millennia. The life domains in which she primarily manifested herself were love and war, and her personality exhibited everywhere the same four basic traits of chasity and promiscuity, motherliness and bloodthirstiness. (p. 154) The oldest of them was Inanna ... That she was regarded a virgin is evident from the two epithets which accompany her name: ... "the maid Inanna" and "the pure Inanna." Yet throughout Sumerian history she was the goddess primarily responsible for sexual love, procreation, and fertility, ... (p. 154) In the Babylonian Ishtar, however a certain shift occurred in the balance between the virginal and promiscuous poles of her character: her virginal aspect was underplayed, while her promiscuity was emphasized... (p. 155) One of her titles was "sweet-voiced mistress of the gods." Yet she was also "the most awesome of the goddesses," Ishtar of the battlefield," clad in divine fire, carrying the melammu-headwear, who would rain fire on the enemies." (pp. 155-156) In astrology, the Iranians themselves regarded her as the personification of the planet VENUS. (p. 157) [emphasis added]
On the Jewish Kabbalistic Matronit:
The same four traits of chastity and promiscuity, motherliness and bloodthirstiness, characterize the Matronit, the daughter-goddess of Kabbalistic literature. (p. 158) ... the prototype [of the Matronit] was the Sumerian Inanna, whose features can be clearly recognized in the Babylonian Ishtar, the Canaanite Anath, and the Persian Anahita. (p. 177)
A related matter; on the Queen of heaven:
... Nevertheless, it is from Biblical sources that we know the names of the three goddesses who were worshiped by the ancient Hebrews down to the days of the Babylonian exile: Asherah, Astarte, and the Queen of heaven, who was probably identical with [the Canaanite] Anath. (p. 19) [For Queen of Heaven See Jeremiah 7:18.]
I contend that the planet Venus was Isaiah's Virgin.
If Venus was the virgin, what/who was Immanuel?
We read:
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. ... (Isaiah 7:15)
If one chooses to look at this verse from an astronomical viewpoint (and I do) it could be considered as describing the movements of a smaller planetary body (the child) passing through the manna tail of the comet Venus, i.e., eating butter and honey.
Refusing the evil and choosing the good, in the astronomical sense, would refer to the object settling into an orbit which removes it from any more close encounters with the earth-moon system. This object may have been Mars which Velikovsky says became especially prominent to earth-bound observers starting in 747 BC. (See WiC pp. 238-239)