This claimed "prophecy" appears to be identical to #170. ISAIAH 9:6...A SON GIVEN-DEITY...LUKE 1:32; JOHN 1;14; 1 TIM. 3:16.
This is a very popular passage and mistranslated versions are not only found in Christmas songs, but it is misquoted by no less than Linus, a much beloved character from the Peanuts Christmas special!
The problem is that it is mistranslated and thus its meaning is totally distorted.
First, this passage has already taken place -- it is in the past.
Think about that.
It is in the past, and not the recent past.
This all happened 700+ years before Jesus was born.
Isaiah, in this passage, is speaking in the past (perfect) tense.
Christian translations may put it in "future" tense ("for unto us a child is born"), but it is actually in past tense. "For a child has been born to us."
There is no way this passage can be a prophecy about Jesus because it had already happened 700+ years before Jesus was supposedly born.
Romans 1:3, 4 (the claimed fulfillment passage) says "regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life[a] was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of G-d in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus. . . our Lord. "
There sure is a lot in that one passage -- and Paul who wrote it made a lot of statements without supporting even one of them.
All humans are the sons and daughters of G-d, but not one of us is a god. The claim that Jesus was "appointed" (does this mean not born as?) "the" son of G-d is totally unbiblical -- whether it was via a resurrection (and remember that there were other resurrections, none of whom became divine in the process).
The normal Christian mistranslation of Isaiah 9:6 - 7 reads: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the L-rd Almighty will accomplish this."
It is a beautiful passage -- but it is totally mistranslated beyond all recognition.
It is not placed in the future, it is all in the past at the time the words are spoken by Isaiah. The first verb that appears in the verse is יֻלַּד (yulad).
יֻלַּד (yulad) is a conjugation of the root verb ילד in the 3rd-person, singular, masculine, past tense, in the pu'al stem. Pu'al makes it passive intensive so the correct translation in Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 (6-7 in Christian versions) is in the past. Instead of "a child is born" it should be "a son has been / was born."
Born 700+ years before Jesus.
Note that the mistranslation says "And he will be called"
Yet this is in the PAST tense. וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמֹ֜ו / vayira shmo is the Hebrew. Pay particular attention to the verb וַיִּקְרָא / vayikra. It is active (“and he was called”) and yet in Christian translations:
Do you see anything, even in the mistranslation, that the child is declared to be the son of G-d with power?
It is not there.
The mistranslation calls the child "Mighty G-d" (although in the Hebrew it is אֵ֣ל גִּבֹּ֔ור / el gibbor). The Hebrew word אֵל / El means mighty or powerful. The translator chose to translate it as "G-d" in this translatino, but could have properly translated it as "power" or "might." אֵל / El is often translated as "G-d", and אֵל / el is often used as a name (description) of G-d by itself or as part of other words (e.g. elohim). In other words -- this could have been translated as "mighty power" as well as "mighty G-d."
Does "Mighty G-d" refer to the child?
It refers to G-d Himself, who names the child a peace prince.
So אֵל / el means power.
גִּבֹּ֔ור / gibbor means brave or heroic.
This mistranslation of אֵ֣ל גִּבֹּ֔ור / el gibbor appears in yet another claimed "fulfillment" tied to Y'shayahu / Isaiah 9:5 - 6 (6-7 in Christian versions) and many a missionary will say "who else would be called a god in the bible except Jesus?" -- this question is based on their mistranslations and misunderstandings of the bible. In fact many names have the word "G-d" in them (including Immanu'el -- G-d is with us), and in this passage the child is not called a mighty G-d. Rather, the passage should read: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty G-d, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
This child, born 700+ years before Jesus, was given authority (Jesus had no authority). He was a prince (Jesus was a carpenter / preacher). G-d (the wondrous adviser, mighty and our everlasting father) called him a prince of peace.
This is a much beloved passage among Christians, and it is beautiful -- but it is not a messianic prophecy, if you read it with a clear eye (even ignoring the past tense) it does not "fit" Jesus who was never a prince, never had authority or power. . . It is sad to see how the average Christian is so deceived by misleading translations.
You might ask, why do modern translators not correct the errors?
Young's Literal translation puts it in past tense "For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us." Note they still capitalize certain words to make them "divine" (C in child, S in son). . . Net Bible also puts it in past tense: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us." The NRSV has "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us."
Why don't other Christian translations fix the errors?
There is no way to know with certainty why the errors are not fixed, but publishers are in business to make money. If a translation differs too much from what the reader expects the reader will not purchase the bible. Also, Jews are raised learning Hebrew from a very young age -- but Christians who learn Hebrew generally do so as adults. Their knowledge of the language is usually not as sophisticated as a religious Jew. This is not meant as an insult, but merely a fact.
On to the next claim.