Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah (contrary to claims by Infidels)

"Parthenos does not always mean "virgin"" Because it doesn't "always" mean virgin doesn't show that it "never" does, as for example Genesis 24:16 where parthenos is used for "virgin" in the LXX, and we know it means virgin because it also says no man had known (had sex with) her. Words tend to have more than one meaning at times, and showing that parthenos has other meanings besides "virgin" is no evidence that it can't mean virgin in Isaiah 7:14. Similarly, the word "son" doesn't always mean a biological relationship (John 1:34) but that doesn't mean it "never" does. (Matt 1:25) "The 70 rabbis did not translate Isaiah, only the "Pentateuch"" Following the translation of the Torah "(285-244 B.C.E.)...The designation Septuagint was EXTENDED to the rest of the Bible and non-canonical books that were translated to Greek during the following two centuries." (Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 14, p1178) At Hebrews 10:5-6 Paul says: "Sacrifice and offering thou hast not desired, but a body thou hast prepared for me." (Heb. 10:5,6) This quote of Psalm 40:6 is taken direct from the Septuagint but disagrees with the Mesoretic text of the OT which reads: "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired; mine ears Thou hast opened." The MT doesn't say anything in Psalms about "a body Thou hast prepared for me." Similar comments could be made comparing Hebrews 10:38 and Habakkuk 2:4. The fact that Paul's numerous LXX quotes agree with the today's 4th-5th century LXX shows it is merely a copy of an earlier LXX written before Jesus was born upon which NT writers relied. This LXX is almost 1000 years older than the 9th century MT which we know only goes back to the 9th-10th centuries C.E. "The introduction to the English edition of the LXX states that "The Pentetuch is considered to be the part best executed, while the book of Isaiah is considered to be the worst... The version you are thinking of is not original, but a later corrupt version." We have numerous NT quotes from the ancient LXX which agree with the Syriac Peshitta Christian Aramaic Scriptures of the 5th century C.E., the 4th century Latin Vulgate which has "virgo" (virgin), as well as the 5th century Septuagint. All three agree on Isaiah 7:14. They also agree on how the rest of the passage is to be read; we have no such agreement among the Hebrew manuscripts. In Isaiah 7:14 the Dead Sea Scrolls have יהוה (YHWH) as the name of God while the Masoretic text has אדוני (adonai); the Dead Sea Scrolls have וקרא (v'qara) meaning "he will call" but the MT uses וקראת (v'qarat) meaning "she will call," other Hebrew texts have "you will call." The Greek texts have no such disagreement on this passage. As I said before, the LXX is older and better than the MT. It was the Jews who changed the Hebrew texts to deny this verse was talking about the Messiah. The LXX is obviously based on a better Hebrew text than modern Hebrew manuscripts which lack passages found in the original. As for the woman calling the child's name Immanuel, consider this: According to 2 Samuel 12:24–25, Solomon was to be called Jedidiah, but he was never referred to by this name once in the Tanakh. The Talmud and a number of Rabbinic commentaries claim that the birth of Hezekiah fulfilled Isaiah 9:6, referring all the names of the child to him. But when was he ever called by any of these names, let alone called by all of them? Yet that did not stop these traditional Jewish sources from claiming that this passage referred to him. How then can the argument be made that Isaiah 7:14 cannot refer to Jesus because he was not called Immanuel in the New Testament? There was therefore no need for the NT to record the name Immanuel as being given to Jesus for Jews to understand the prophecy as applying to him. The fact is that Yeshua the Lord is praised and adored as Immanuel by millions of his followers around the world. Many of the great hymns of the church center in on that one key name, including the medieval classic beginning with the words, "O come, O come, Emmanuel, and ransom captive Israel." Matthew says "they" will call his name Immanuel, and since he was closer to the text than commentaries today, he was in a better position to know what it said. Con argues that the child being given the name Immanuel is what would prove God was with them, but how can this be when Immanuel was a common name and never proved God was with them before? Women in Israel had always been naming their babies Immanuel. Con then argues that God gives the sign to Ahaz anyway but I've already shown that not only did Ahaz reject the sign, but God promised destruction to come upon him and his contemporaries by the Assyrians! How is that a sign of God being with them? God turns to this unbelieving king and says, in effect, "Since you didn't want a sign, I'm going to give it to the house of David." Accordingly, He turns from Ahaz to the descendants of David. "Hear, O house of David." (Isaiah 7:13) Seen in this light, the sign has nothing to do with Ahaz who has already demonstrated his unbelief. Signs are given, not to those who refuse to believe, but to those who are willing to believe. Con says Mahershalahasbaz qualifies to fulfill this prophecy, but he is never called God in the Bible. Jesus is God with us all over the NT, and what's more, neither of them are called ‘Immanuel' specifically, for the Immanuel in Isaiah 8 isn't the baby, its Isaiah himself. And if Mahershalahasbaz was the sign of God being with them, then why did God bring the Assyrian army upon them? Was God with them during the Assyrian invasion? Note that Con didn't respond to the fact that almah usually denoted a young woman, a maiden, which in Jewish culture was typically a virgin. So even this word can correctly be rendered as "virgin" by Matthew. When we examine each of the uses of almah in the Old Testament, we come to the observation that it always seems to refer to a young unmarried girl who is expected to also be a virgin. Almah is used of the unmarried Rebekah. In this passage, the servant of Abraham has been sent to find a bride for Isaac. He is evidently looking for an unmarried maiden who is assumed to be a virgin. (Gen 24:43) At Exodus 2:8, the young girl, Miriam, the sister of Moses, is obviously a very young unmarried virgin. "There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins (almah) without number." (Song of Solomon 6:8) The word Almah is used to describe the young women of the court of Solomon who had not yet been taken as concubines. They are seen as separate and distinct from the wives and the concubines. In each of these instances, Almah refers to young women who are of an age ready for marriage, but who have not yet been married and who, by implication, are expected to be virgins. So almah and parthenos at Isaiah 7:14 both can mean a virgin. ""For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." Note that the very next chapter states, "For before the child shall know to cry, 'My father and my mother' the riches of Damascus and the spoils of Samaria shall be taken away." This is a clear fulfillment of the prophecy." Similarity doesn't make two situations the same. The promised presence of God, "God with us," is fulfilled in God the Son – Jesus Christ. He was God with us, not Mahershalahasbaz. The presence of Mahershalahasbaz didn't guarantee preace from war or safety from the invading Assyrian army, but Jesus came at a time of relative peace to enlighten them with his teachings. Matthew directly testifies Jesus was born of a virgin, so does Luke; no one in the Old Testament says Mahershalahasbaz was born of a virgin. Con has not torn down my evidence that Isaiah 7:14 is a genuine prophecy of the Messiah.