Reading Isaiah brings up three issues: the “sign;” the “Virgin Birth;” and the “name” given to the new-born baby.
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 KJV)
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 her new born baby-god 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 Jewish 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.
Religiholics insist that Isaiah 7:14 is a prophetic foretelling of the birth of a Christian messiah ― Jesus ― that would occur more than 700 years in the future, relative to the time these words were recorded by Isaiah. In other words ― A DUAL PROPHECY ― a “catchy” phrase that Christian clergy/apologists use to create a defense of an unsupported concept. The primary reason for this claim is the fact that this verse is allegedly 'quoted' in the New Testament by the unknown 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? Tomorrow?
Think about it, why would Isaiah be concerned of events 700 years later when the threat of death and destruction were preeminent in his own 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.
"The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it." -Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)