Another issue is: Did any part of this "prophecy" come true in Isaiah's time?
If you are talking about Isaiahs 7:14, it did not.
So can you make enough sense of it to believe Isaiah is telling all of this to King Ahaz and none of it is going to happen at that time?
I don't think very many people would think that, but then what do you do with the dual prophecy problem?
The problem is the word or words young woman, almah, and parthenos/virgin.
For Isaiahs prophecy to come true during his time the words young woman must be interpreted as not a virgin anymore but as a woman who is married or had a child already. If we follow this interpretation then the question is, who is the woman here. Was it Isaiahs wife or Ahazs? No scriptures can support this theory.
Now, if we follow the interpretation of a virgin by the 72 Jewish translator, then neither one is the woman in Isaiahs 7:14. Therefore, this prophecy did not happen in Isaiahs time.
How do we prove which one is the right one?
The basic rule of textual criticism is the older the text, the more reliable. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament outdates the complete Masoretic Text version by almost 700 years. IOW, Chronologically speaking it should look like this: Ancient Hebrew text, translated into Greek/Septuagint/OG/LXX 300-100 BCE, New Testament first generation AD of Christianity to 100 AD, and then the alterations of the Words of God, by Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and even Jerome, the Talmudist Jews, and lastly the Masoretes, known for the Masoretic text, started between 100 to 1100 AD.
If one follows the chronological order or the timeline between the ancient Hebrew text all the way to the Masoretic text one can not make a mistake.
Where did the word parthenos/virgin came from?
It came from the Greek/Septuagint.
Where was this Septuagint based on?
From ancient Hebrew text and not from the Masoretic text which came later 1000 AD.
For example again for the 2nd time, Iranaeus [202 AD] concerning Isaiah 7:14: The Septuagint clearly writes of a
virgin that shall conceive. While the Hebrew text was, according to Irenaeus, at that time [100 to 200 AD] interpreted by Theodotion and Aquila (both proselytes of the Jewish faith) as a
young woman that shall conceive.
According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used this to claim that Joseph was the (biological) father of Jesus. From Irenaeus' point of view that was pure heresy, facilitated by (late, very late) anti-Christian alterations of the scripture in Hebrew, as evident by the older, pre-Christian, Septuagint.
Matthews 1:25 [remember the timeline] clearly disagree with this heresy, that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus.
Mt 1:25 and knew her/Mary not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.
Matthew wants to make Jesus' virginal conception unambiguous, for he adds that Joseph had no sexual union with Mary until she gave birth to Jesus. The "until" clause most naturally means that Mary and Joseph enjoyed normal conjugal relations after Jesus' birth.
Please read and understand:
When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Testament translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available and not from the ancient Hebrew text where the Septuagint was originally based on. He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew, and not from the ancient Hebrew, rather than Greek/Septuagint.
You asked,
Why are words altered to make it work for Jesus?
As you can read and understand the statements above you would see the opposite of your question. It was not altered to make it Christological but it was altered to make it un-Christological by the Jews.
I think the most important question is, why Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion after almost 500 years needed to translate/interpret the Original Greek, known as the Septuagint/LXX, into another Greek version?
Can someone answer this?
Christians did not alter anything. Different versions of the bible/NT today like the AMP, NLT, NIV are for easy reading. It would be hard for a new reader to read ASV/NT and KJV/NT which is the closest to the original Greek language of the New Testament. Some NT versions like the NWT were altered significantly to suit their own theology, Example of that is John 1:1.
As far as the OT is concern, ASV and KJV, they were from the masoretic text. However, there is the Christian version of the MT and the Jewish version of the MT.
What is difference between the two versions? We go back to Isaiahs 7:14 again, and as explained from the statements above, youll be the judge who really altered the very Word of God.
A related issue is what the Catholic Church did with Mary. The Popes were speaking for God weren't they? And they came up with Mary's Immaculate Conception. Is that the gospel truth? Or, something made up by religious men trying to tell a story that fit with their concept of spiritual reality?
I am not a Catholic. Mary, like you and I is mortal. Shes been dead for over 2000 years now. Where is Mary today? I believe Mary is with God in heaven. What the RCCs doing with Mary and all the saints [idols or images] is unbiblical.
You might say "but Matthew was an apostle." But was he the writer of the gospel?
Yes! With all my heart otherwise my faith is useless.
That's the tradition but does anyone know for sure? "But it's in the Bible." It's in the NT which was added onto the Hebrew Bible by Christians that decided which books to include.
Who do you think wrote Genesis? I believe with all my heart Moses wrote Genesis.
How did he write Genesis when he first appeared in the Book of Exodus?
The same way the writers of the New Testament.
2Pe 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.
In the NT, which version of the Hebrew Bible did they use? The Greek translation or a Hebrew version? Which one is more correct? Do both have flaws or is one the "inerrant" Word of God and the other not so much?
The Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples speaks and writes in Greek therefore, Septuagint or the Old Testament is the bible or the source of the word of God during that time. There was no NT yet at that time.
Jn 5:39 Ye search the scriptures/Septuagint/Old Testament, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are they which bear witness of me;
Ac 17:2 and Paul, as his custom was, went in unto them, and for three sabbath days reasoned with them from the Scriptures/Septuagint/Old Testament,
Ac 17:3 opening and alleging that it behooved the Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom, said he, I proclaim unto you, is the Christ.
Both Paul and the Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples used the Septuagint [OT Scriptures] as their source of the Word of God. After the apostles proved that Jesus is the Christ [read the verses] from the Septuagint, alterations of the words of God started. Who started this? Not the Christians, but the Jews.
Mt 28:13 They told the soldiers, You must say, Jesus disciples came during the night while we were sleeping, and they stole his body.
Mt 28:14 If the governor hears about it, well stand up for you and everything will be all right.
Mt 28:15 So the guards accepted the bribe and said what they were told to say. Their story spread widely among the Jews, and they still tell it today.
From these verses you should be able to tell who is the liar.