I claimed that the modern versions attacked the virgin birth by changing Isaiah 7:14 to things like "maiden" or "young woman" in the text or footnotes. The response I received was:
{{ No, you found ONE verse where the mention of maiden was made instead of virgin. Again, to even say it waters it down is stretching logic to the breaking point. }}
Okay, tell me how many other OT verses speak of the virgin birth. How many of them are clear, especially without this verse for support? Would a Jew be likely to receive Jesus as Messiah based on that?
Also, the verses where Joseph is called the "father" of Jesus in the narrative were mentioned. Joseph was not Jesus' Father.
How many verses clearly attest to the virgin birth? If you mess with just a few, especially the well-known ones like Isaiah 7:14 you have diluted a significant portion of that doctrine.
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
How many times does the word "virgin" appear in the Bible referring to the birth of Jesus? THREE! And the two in the NT refer to the one in the OT! If you mess with ONE, you have directly removed 33% of all the references and indirectly affected the other 2/3 adversely.
Matt 1:23 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.
Luke 1:27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Sometimes, a well-placed mistake can have serious repercussions. Remember, rat poison is 99% good rat food and only 1% sodium fluoride.
The word "virgin" in this context only appears three times in the Bible, and the two NT appearances are references to the lone OT verse. So to mess up just the ONE OT verse, indirectly messes up all three. The Greek word for virgin is unequivocal. The writers of the original Greek of Matthew and Luke believed Isaiah 7:14 referred specifically to a virgin.
In Luke 2:33 & 43, the MVs have the narrative of the Holy Spirit call Joseph the father of Jesus (which is not excusable as the case of Mary calling Joseph his father).
But that is not all:
Mat 1:25 KJV And knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.
(NIV) Matt 1:25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Removing the key word "firstborn" certainly weakens the doctrine. Maybe she had previous sons with a different man in the NIV.
John 3:16 KJV For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
NIV John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus is not the "one and only Son" of God - *I* am also a son of God. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God. This doctrinal error also warps the virgin birth.
John 1:14 KJV And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only BEGOTTEN of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
(NIV) John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Same mistake and warping again.
Removing "flesh" from 1 John 4:3 also weakens the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
So this is not a case of one estranged verse taken out of context. Here are seven verses on the subject of the virgin birth of Christ that are diluted - virtually every scripture that deals with the subject, even indirectly. The attack on the virgin birth is systemic.
How many other verses can be shown from the NIV that are solid on the virgin birth? If you can find seven, then the doctrine is diluted 50%. If you can find fourteen, the doctrine is still diluted 33%. Find 21 and you've improved to 25% dilution, which is still pretty awful.
**************************************
This article has a ton of errors and confusions, however this is interesting.
http://www.infidels
Isaiah 7:14 The Message Bible has "a girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant," which implies Brown's interpretation
That interpretation is that the virgin gets pregnant in the normal way, and then is no longer a virgin.
"So the Master is going to give you a sign anyway. Watch for this: A girl who is presently a virgin will get pregnant. She'll bear a son and name him Immanuel (God-With-Us)
Steven Avery
****
What kind of sign would that be? Is that the best the modern version god can do is tell us that a woman will get normally pregnant? Big deal. The Psychic Hotline can give better signs than that.
Someone who is a virgin and has not carnally known a man conceiving and giving birth - now that's a sign. That's something only God could do.
Despite the fact that without the virgin birth, Jesus would've been born corrupted in sin like the rest of us, the virgin birth is not an important doctrine since the modern versions insist that no important doctrine is affected by their versions.
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Luke 1:31 & 34 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Matt 1:18 & 25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Not only do the modern versions violate the other scriptures pertaining to the doctrine of the incarnation (nativity), but they violate sanity to offer something so normal and common as a "sign". Even Benny Hinn gives better signs than that.
