Between Isaiah 7:14 and 9:6 three different signs were given and all three are concerned with a name that is to be given to a son. The sign is not that there is a son; the sign is the name that is to be given to that particular son.

If we look closely at these passages in Scripture, we will find that the mother's condition is different in all three cases. In one instance the mother is already pregnant; in another, the mother must be impregnated; and in the last one, the son had already been born when these series of passages were given.

The problem with the King James Version is that its translation of the Old Testament is based primarily on the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate. Jewish scholars translated the first five books of the Hebrew text into Greek and later Greek and Roman scholars translated the remaining portions into Greek. Still later other Greek and Roman scholars translated the Septuagint into the Latin Vulgate and both of the versions are of the Catholic Church.

The King James Version of the Old Testament is based primarily on the Septuagint. Thus, the KJV text has gone from the original inspired Hebrew through a translation into Greek and then into English. In some cases in the Old Testament the text is based on the Latin Vulgate which was translated into English.

If that was not bad enough, the King James english of 1611 is archaic and difficult to understand. The information in the archaic King James Version had already undergone two Catholic revisions before the King James boys got their hands on it.

Isaiah 7:14

Any child who has ever attended summer Bible School will tell you, "Yep, that is him all right, the man from Galilee." However, is it?

We will begin by asking you a serious question: What is "the sign" and who was ETERNAL giving "the sign" to? In order to answer that, we need a brief history lesson first. The setting is around 735 BCE and the king of Assyria, Tiglath-pileser III, and his people were doing what Assyrians have always done. They were invading nations or peoples and therefore, were invading, conquering, raping, pillaging, destroying, and terrorizing as they have always done. What can I say, that is just what they do!

The setting in the land of Israel at that time was that the Davidic Kingdom of Israel had split in two. However, this series of verses will conclude with its reunification.

The capital of the ten tribes (the House of Israel) was Samaria in the north and the capital of two tribes (the House of Judah) was Jerusalem to the south. The king of Israel was Phacee, the king of Judah was Achaz, and the king of Syria (or Aram) was Rasin.

Tiglath-pileser (the King of Assyria) was invading southward through Phoenicia and down into the Mesopotamian area. He went through Aram and Israel like a wrecking ball and kings Rasin and Phacee were forced to pay tribute to Tiglath-pileser. As vassals to Tiglath-pileser, they were forced to do everything that the conquering king demanded which was a very humiliating situation for them. To try to remedy the situation, Rasin and Phacee formed an alliance and invited King Achaz of Judah to join their pact and help them fight against King Tiglath-pileser.

King Achaz did not join their alliance nor join an attack against Assyria so King Rasin and King Phacee decided to attack Jerusalem. Their plan was to force Achaz to join their alliance and together attack Assyria or they would assassinate him and set up somebody else in that area that would join them.

This little history background brings us to Isaiah chapter 7 with the two armies attacking Jerusalem but not making much headway. In verses 2 through 7, King Achaz (of Judah) realizes his predicament and seeks help from the Prophet Isaiah. ETERNAL sends Isaiah and Isaiah's son Shearjashub to King Achaz to tell him not to fear the alliance because The Mighty One will protect him. Shearjashub is the first son mentioned in this passage. Obviously, Isaiah's son had already been born. Shearjashub's name means "a remnant will return."

Isaiah's message from ETERNAL was given to Achaz. Achaz was assured that the other kings' plan would not succeed and neither king would increase their power or boundaries from Judah. In addition within sixty-five years, Ephraim (Israel) would be crushed and broken. Achaz was having trouble believing Isaiah's message so ETERNAL sent him another word:

Starting in verse 12, the king refused and said:

Next comes verse 14:

The KJV in Isaiah 7:14 uses the English word "virgin" which is translated from the Greek Septuagint. In the Hebrew the word "`almah" (al-maw' H5959 in Gesenius') states "a young woman, a maiden, a youthful spouse recently married. The idea of unspotted virginity is not that which this word conveys."

In addition, the word "shall" is NOT in the Hebrew. The addition of this word seems to make this a matter that would happen at some distant time. The English word "conceive" comes from the Hebrew word "hareh" (H2030. Haw-reh' in Strong's) is from H2029 which is "harah" (haw-raw'). It is a primary root meaning, "to be pregnant." Thus, the young woman in question was not to become pregnant but she was already pregnant.

The "sign" was to be that she would name the child a certain name and that particular name was to be "Immanuel." Thus Achaz, who must have known the girl and that she was already pregnant, would then realize that The Mighty One of Israel was protecting him. If this was a woman that King Achaz did not know, if it was just somebody that lived down the street that he had no knowledge of, the fact that she was pregnant and had a child which she named "Immanuel" would not mean anything to him.

However, if it was someone that he already knew, let's say, a relative maybe a niece, then in a short time after he got the special message from the CREATOR, if someone came up to him and said, "By the way, your niece had a son and she named him "Immanuel" which means "our CREATOR is with us," then he would be assured that what Isaiah told him was true. Hopefully, the fulfillment of Isaiah's message would have rung a bell in Achaz's mind and he would have thought, "Oh yeah, that's what the CREATOR told me."

Stop and think about this for a moment. Theoretically, if Achaz's message was to be a prophecy about a "supposed man of Galilee," how was ETERNAL'S message going to benefit Achaz in his present situation in 735 BCE due to the fact that the Galilean would not even be born for over 700 more years? That would be as if ETERNAL had told him: I am going to give you a sign that these two armies are not going to annihilate you but the sign will not happen for 735 years from now. That would not be very comforting to Achaz because by then all parties involved would have long since died and he would have been just as well off without such a sign.

Therefore, if this was truly a prophecy about "a man from Galilee," it really is not that much of a sign that is going to help Achaz. It is not going to benefit him at all. In other words, what the Protestants and Catholics say this verse means is just pure nonsense. It is not a dual meaning either because pulling verses out of context is a Catholic/Protestant theological scheme to shore up their invented estological (end time) ideas.

Are you beginning to see the dishonesty in any translation that is based on the Septuagint? This one verse should be reason enough to scrap the Septuagint because this one false verse is something that the Catholic/Protestants have built a total false religion around. The whole basis of the Catholic/Protestant religion is that "a man from Galilee" was born of a virgin to be "the savior of the world." To prove it they quote Isaiah 7:14 from a Greek translation that came out of the Roman Catholic Church. The name "Immanuel" is the key because if it were a prophesy about a Galilean why wasn't he named Immanuel? The prophecy says, "she will name him Immanuel" but no Galilean known was named Immanuel. In addition this "Immanuel" would know right and evil, thus he was a sinner like all of humankind.

Did ETERNAL's true sign come true? Yes. Check it out in 2 Kings 16:7-9. Within three years, in 732 BCE, the Assyria army destroyed King Rasin and his army. Thus, we see that in three years or by the time Immanuel learned to reject the evil and choose the good, Judah had been delivered from harms way.

The latter part of chapter 7 and the first of chapter 8 shows that even with the sign Achaz did not trust ETERNAL enough to leave the matter to Him to solve. Instead Achaz paid Tiglath-pileser to save him and brought condemnation upon himself. The final outcome of that scenario is that Achaz (a Jew) paid the Assyrians to capture Israel.

Another Child Sign

Starting in Isaiah 8:6, ETERNAL states that since the people of Jerusalem are planning to refuse His gentle care and were enthusiastic about asking Kings Rasin and Phacee to come to aid them, then ETERNAL will overwhelm them with Euphrates' mighty flood. The king of Assyria and all his mighty armies will rage against them. This flood will overflow all its channels and sweep into the land of Judah. However, the people are told not to fear anything except ETERNAL and if they fear Him they need not fear anything else, for He is their Rock of salvation. But Israel and Judah refused His care and stumbled on ETERNAL, their Rock.

Verse 14 is also taken out of context to try to help validate a Galilean as a savior. However, in context the message is clear even in the KJV:

Notice ETERNAL said He shall be a sanctuary for both houses of Israel. When will that be? Since it has not happened yet, it is prophesied for a future time. Therefore, in the text flow, The Mighty One is beginning to bring focus on the latter days. I will quote the next few verses from The New English Bible since it is written in later plainer English.

Isaiah is prophesying of the darkness ALL of Israel will be in from the destruction of the first Temple and their captivity until the building of the third Temple. The chapter breaks were added by Catholic monks and are an unnatural break in the text flow. Thus, the flow is from their darkness back then until their descendants see the light of their salvation in the New Kingdom age. Remember that Isaiah's first son's name means "a remnant will return" and in the latter days, the remnant of ALL Israel will return as the Davidic Kingdom is finally established.

Isaiah now begins to show that the "Hope of Israel" is that ETERNAL will bring joy and gladness when He finally sets up His Messianic Kingdom. Here we see the final sign of a son. This one, just like the first one, had already been born. However, different than the first son, at the time of Isaiah, this son had already died.

How much plainer can it be? King David is the "Hope of Israel" to be the awakened and stand from the grave Messiah who, under ETERNAL, will finally bring peace and reunification to both houses of Israel in the eternal Davidic Kingdom. The Prophet Elijah will be awakened to turn the hearts of the children of Israel back to the faith of the fathers, the Abrahamic Hebrew faith.

In summary, do you really believe as those in the pagan heathen religions that a g-d, the holy ghost of a trinity, came to earth and had sex with a woman? Really, do you really believe that?

[ The Hope of Israel Main Page ]