There are some fallacies with this argument. The main one being that the scripture
has been changed to fit beliefs. I don't see that, particularly with the New Testament.
Certainly the Jewish Old Testament was condemning of the Jewish people - they didn't
change this scripture, just worked around it.
Saying the bible is "no different" is a kind of moral equivalence. Picking out how the bible
resembles other books doesn't do it justice - it's where it differs that says a lot more.
Excuse me, but all the New Testament writing do, is trying to justify a new religion by reinterpreting the Old Testament passages (signs, prophecies), as well as adapting foreign religious beliefs.
The Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth, a mortal woman conceiving a child via a god, and giving birth to a demigod, is a foreign concept, not found anywhere in the Old Testament.
Gilgamesh being the son of Lugalbanda and goddess Ninsun, Heracles (Hercules) was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, were just some of examples of demigods.
Matthew 1:22-23 reinterpreted Isaiah’s sign as the sign of messiah, except that when you read the whole chapter, the child to be born, Immanuel, has nothing to do with messiah, because Isaiah 7:14 was never messianic prophecy, not unless Tiglath-pileser III was the messiah?
Matthew 1:23 left out the rest of the sign 7:14-17.
“Isaiah 7:14-17“ said:
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. 15 He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. 16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
The sign had nothing to do with virgin birth or the messiah, but had everything to with the Ahaz’s war with Pekah of Israel and Rezin of Aram, and with Tiglath-pileser’s intervention.
The sign was about Assyria coming to Ahaz’s aid.
A similar sign is given in Isaiah 8:3-4, and given the similarities of the two signs in relation to Assyria, it is revealed that the pregnant woman was Isaiah’s own wife, and that Immanuel is Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
“Isaiah 8:1-4” said:
8 Then the Lord said to me, Take a large tablet and write on it in common characters, “Belonging to Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” 2 and have it attested for me by reliable witnesses, the priest Uriah and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah. 3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz; 4 for before the child knows how to call “My father” or “My mother,” the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away by the king of Assyria.
The sign had nothing to do Mary and Jesus, but the author of Matthew wanted the readers to view it that way.