Isaiah 9:6 from Tanakh to KJV?

[NOONE7]

Question on this.  If this Tanakh website is being honest how would I understand this or even explain? Every now and then you will meet someone that states well the Bible has been changed.  So how can you trust the book.  What would you say?

KJV Isaiah 7:14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

(Tanakh) Isaiah 7:14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. ידלָ֠כֵן יִתֵּ֨ן אֲדֹנָ֥י ה֛וּא לָכֶ֖ם א֑וֹת הִנֵּ֣ה הָֽעַלְמָ֗ה הָרָה֙ וְיֹלֶ֣דֶת בֵּ֔ן וְקָרָ֥את שְׁמ֖וֹ עִמָּ֥נוּ אֵֽל:

Note Isaiah 7:14  For both still declares this unique child to be called Immanuel! God with us.      But some people do say why the change of virgin for young woman?

Or

(Tanakh) Isaiah 9:6

For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

הכִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּ וַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹ וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִי־עַ֖ד שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם:

KJV Isaiah 9:6For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

This verse seems to be more complicated as the Tanakh seems to be saying that the Father called him only, " the prince of peace", while the KJV declares all these names for the child?  But the similitude seems to be the government of God or the authority of God are on the SON our Lord Jesus.

Thanks for your time.

[Deborah_]

Isaiah 7:14

This is easy to explain. The Hebrew word in question actually means "young (unmarried) woman". That would be a literal translation. Being unmarried, she can be assumed to be a virgin. When the Tanakh was translated into Greek in the 2nd century BC, the translators decided to use the Greek word 'parthenos' - which specifically means 'virgin'. This is more of an interpretive translation. Most English Bibles (including the KJV) do the same.

 

Isaiah 9:6

This is an example of ambiguity in the Hebrew (a very common problem). Both translations are possible. The translator's footnote in the NET Bible (which says the same as the KJV) states:

No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”

[NOONE7]

Thanks to the responses to this thread.  

[NOONE7]

On 1/16/2019 at 2:18 PM, Deborah_ said:

Isaiah 7:14

This is easy to explain. The Hebrew word in question actually means "young (unmarried) woman". That would be a literal translation. Being unmarried, she can be assumed to be a virgin. When the Tanakh was translated into Greek in the 2nd century BC, the translators decided to use the Greek word 'parthenos' - which specifically means 'virgin'. This is more of an interpretive translation. Most English Bibles (including the KJV) do the same.

 

Isaiah 9:6

This is an example of ambiguity in the Hebrew (a very common problem). Both translations are possible. The translator's footnote in the NET Bible (which says the same as the KJV) states:

No subject is indicated for the verb “he called.” If all the titles that follow are ones given to the king, then the subject of the verb must be indefinite, “one calls.” However, some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, “and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, ‘Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.’”

Thanks for this info.  Do you prefer the literal translation or the KJV?  Also was the literal word for virgin used in Matthew 1:23?  

[NOONE7]

On 1/16/2019 at 3:57 PM, Abdicate said:

The normal of today is applied to situations in the past. Today, if you're a virgin at marriage, you're unique. So because it says virgin, most can't accept that. There is no instance where it can be proved that this word designates a young woman who is not a virgin. Remember too that and English translation of the Hebrew by the Jews will not permit anything that supports a virgin birth so it doesn't point to Jesus. Translations have a LOT of biases. All do.

But the apostles all they knew was the old testament to prove that the the Lord is Jesus Christ?

[NOONE7]

On 1/16/2019 at 7:08 PM, pinacled said:

As said earlier. A young woman unmarried or rather never married is assumed to be a virgin. An honorable expectation as a far as I can tell. 

Another interesting comparison of the kjv to tanakh is the unicorn or tachash in hebrew.

Blessings Always 

Thanks will check this out!

[Deborah_]

33 minutes ago, NOONE7 said:

Thanks for this info.  Do you prefer the literal translation or the KJV?  Also was the literal word for virgin used in Matthew 1:23?  

Personally, I don't like the KJV because the language is outdated. I use modern versions of the Bible. 

Where Isaiah 7:14 is concerned, I think it's important to know both translations. The 'literal' one doesn't really get the full meaning across in English. Would we guess (especially in the current state of society) that a young unmarried woman would be a virgin?

Matthew's gospel, like the rest of the New Testament, was written in Greek and uses the Greek translation when quoting from the Old Testament. So it's the Greek word 'parthenos' ('virgin') there.

[Jayne]

I have no problem with Isaiah 7:14 being "young woman" or "virgin".  It's a prophecy, but a dual one.  It has an immediate and future meaning.

The LORD was speaking to King Ahaz through Isaiah.  King Ahaz was fearful of his enemies conquering him.  God told him through Isaiah that this would not happen.  And God told Ahaz to ask for a sign for proof.

King Ahaz would not ask for a sign. {There were reasons for that, but that's another topic}

God gave him one anyway.  "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.  The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”

God is telling King Ahaz that very soon, those trying to destroy him will be destroyed first.  God doesn't give a specific time frame but puts it in reference of a particular woman having a son and time it takes before the child eats solid food and understands fully right from wrong.  And he also tells the ungodly Ahaz that it won't matter anyway because the Assyrians are coming to lay waste to them.

Well, that particular birth was definitely not a virgin birth.  There's only one virgin birth.

But, this prophecy also has a future meaning.  Matthew, in citing the passage, uses the word virgin.  Jesus was born via THE virgin birth.

Two births coming says God in this  passage.  The regular non-virgin birth of the boy in King Ahaz's reign.  And the miraculous Virgin birth of Jesus hundreds of years later.

[Wayne222]

The Apostles knew Jesus was the Christ by the signs. Remember Jesus did miracles among the people. And he preach the good news of the Kingdom. Mary was a Virgin so we can know Isaiah is meaning virgin. It would not be a sign if she was not a virgin.