This may be the difference that most persons are acquainted with - and I will hypothesize that for many of these persons, it is the only difference that they are familiar with. So let me point out that judging the textual quality of an entire work based upon one single verse would be grossly inappropriate.kaufmannphillips wrote:
And so to the textual issue: yes, when taken together, NT writers appear to show some preference for a text-type like that of the Septuagint. However, to leap from this observation to a preference for the Septuagint over the Masoretic text would be out of line, for a number of reasons:
It would be incautious and irresponsible to assume – based on supposed inspiration – that one text-type is superior to the other, when there is material evidence available for review. As it is, the material evidence should inform not only our appraisals of the text-types, but also our appraisals of the “inspiration” that appears to prefer one text-type.
steve7150 wrote:
The most significant difference that immediately came to my mind is the Matthew quote from the Septuagint, "Behold the virgin shall be with child , and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." Isa 7.14 The LXX uses a greek word that means virgin whereas the Masoretic text uses the word for "maiden."
Beyond this – the prevailing issue in Isaiah 7 is not diction, but significance. In the context of the chapter, King Ahaz is terrified by two kings seeking to overthrow him. The sign that is spoken of in verse 14 is meant to address this situation: a child is born; and by the time that child has reached a certain level of maturity, the lands of those terrifying kings will already be desolate – indeed, things will be so bad that people will be reduced to living off dairy products from animals, because the agricultural strength of their nation will have been ruined. The upshot here: G-d has let Ahaz know that the threat will not succeed in overthrowing him, and the king will see how right G-d is when the threatening nations are destroyed in a matter of months or years.
This is the contextually appropriate understanding of the prophecy. The early church used the text for other purposes, of course. And in doing so, they were not unique amongst the gamut of Second Temple Jewish religion; amongst the Dead Sea Scroll materials, we find other literature that is willing to wrest scriptures to anachronistic concerns, despite plain context.