Isaiah 7:14 - Why did G-d reveal Jesus's virgin birth to King Ahaz?

For years I believed in the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus which you find in Isaiah 7:14. I never took time to read Tanakh and was confident the preachers were well educated and honest people doing their job of spreading the good news to all.

All Images are links to Google Images. Copyright violations not intended.

All Greek Text references are from NIV and Tanakh references are from Chabad.

This post is not intended to offend anyone's faith but for people who are Seeking the truth of THE ONE TRUE G-D of the universe to who we owe all our love, gratitude & devotion.

My encouragement to you to read at least the whole chapter of Tanakh in context to understand what G-d actually said.

G-d Bless and Seek THE Truth.

[Chabad] Isaiah 7:14 Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

[NIV] Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

Isaiah 7 is a historical event that was fulfilled in 3 years after Isaiah made this prophecy to Ahaz.

Here are some points I want to share with you & you decide if the Virgin Birth event mentioned in Matthew and Luke makes sense.

For centuries Christians have claimed that the Septuagint says " the virgin" and the Jews changed the Masoretic Text to "the young woman" because wanted to justify their rejection of Jesus. I will call out some points for anyone who could benefit from these details.

• The oldest copy of Tanakh was the Masoretic text [MT] which is probably about 1,000 years old
• The Romans forced 72 Jewish scribes to translate Torah to Greek around [200 BCE] or 2,200 years ago and this was called the Septuagint. Important to note that only the first 5 books of Moses called the Torah were translated by these Jewish Rabbis.
• The original Septuagint does not exist but copies of it were used to later append the other books of Tanakh to the Septuagint by Greek authors. They probably took a 2000 year old copy of the scrolls they had when they confiscated original scrolls from the temple in 72 CE.
• So the battle has been on for the last 1800 years on who is right. This was futile as MT said "the young woman" & the Septuagint said "the virgin".
• All this changed once the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and a 2300 year old copy of Isaiah scroll says "THE YOUNG WOMAN".
• More recent and honest translations continue to say "a virgin" but put a foot note such as "could also mean a young woman".
• For over a decade now educated Christians are shying away from Isaiah 7:14 as being the virgin birth of Jesus.

All that said let me share some more points about Isaiah 7 which show Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Jesus.

• Irrespective of the virgin or the young woman when G-d says "THE" he meant Ahaz or Isaiah or both knew who this mother was. So how does it add up that Ahaz would think it was Mary who was to be born 700 years later and give birth to Jesus even later.
• G-d told Ahaz, the son who would be born will be called Immanuel [G-d with us]. It makes sense for Ahaz as he was under attack by King of Aram & King of Israel [Northern kingdom].
• Isaiah 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram[Syria], and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it.
• Ahaz was scared and worried when the word of G-d came through Isaiah. If this was actually about Jesus = "Immanuel" = "god is with us", and would come 700 years later, how would Ahaz benefit when the 2 kings were on the way to attack Judah as Isaiah was speaking?
• Isaiah 7:2 And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim," and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.
• If you read Isaiah 7:15, it says "before this son is old enough to know the difference between honey[sweet] & curd[tangy] these 2 kingdoms will be desolate. How can this point to Jesus who came after 700 years and during his time no 2 kingdoms were overthrown and left in ruins.
• Isaiah 7:15 Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. 16 For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."
• 2 Kings 16:8 And Ahaz took the silver and the gold that was found in the house of the Lord and in the treasuries of the king's palace, and sent them to the king of Assyria as a bribe. 9 The king of Assyria complied by attacking Damascus and capturing it. He deported its inhabitants to Kir and put Rezin to death.
• Isaiah 7:8 For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and in another sixty-five years, Ephraim shall be broken, no longer to be a people.
• The context of this verse is that Judah is being attacked by Syria [Aram] & Israel and Ahaz was told by Isaiah that G-d will give him a sign of this child who before he grows up to eat honey and reject curd these two kingdoms will lay desolate.
• Ahaz pays the king of Assyria money and gold in return for attacking Syria & Israel. That is exactly what happened in 3 years when Damascus was defeated and Israel was subjugated to Assyria.
• One can claim, this is not a fulfillment as Ahaz for the solution on his own, not true. If you read Tanakh you will see that G-d works his miracles mostly though people and at times through the enemies, this time he worked through Ahaz himself to give him his solution.
• All that said, a sign should be visible right? Else what is the point of the sign?
• If I place a virgin mother with her child in front of you will you be able to tell me if she was a virgin before she conceived?
• "Mary was a virgin !" is an assertion that can be disputed. A sign should not be disputable right?
• The sign that Isaiah was talking about is the "two kingdoms will be desolate before the child knows to accept good [honey] and reject bad [curd]. This was the sign.
• Which two kingdoms got destroyed by the time Jesus understood to reject bad and accept good?
• Could Jesus actually choose bad given Christians believe he was the son of god or god himself?  
• Christian’s now have moderated their teachings in line of the new findings that this had two prophecies one for Ahaz and one for Jesus who was born 700 years later. This does not add up as Isaiah does not mention that 2 fulfilments will happen.