Well let's start with this statement from the author of the website you've linked to:
The Hebrew word “name,” וְ (“and his name shall be called”) is singular which indicates that this child has one name. Trinitarian translations assign at least four names to the child.
He is correct that שם
here is singular, however exactly what are they envisioning with the word "name"? The Hebrew שם
is used in multiple contexts for multiple meanings, and doesn't just refer to one singular "name" each and every time it's used.
Even in English, "name" has multiple applications (from dictionary.com):
1. a word or a combination of words by which a person, place, or thing, a body or class, or any object of thought is designated, called, or known.
2. mere designation, as distinguished from fact:
3. an appellation, title, or epithet, applied descriptively, in honor, abuse, etc.
In Isaiah 9:6, שם
could easily be translated as "title", or "designation", or "appellation". It doesn't have to be just for one thing, and one thing only.
In Hebrew, the verb “called” (קרא) is in the active voice. This means with rare exceptions, the word “called” has a subject of one or more words. A subject informs who named this child. This word literally means “and he called.”
If he is following the Masoretic vowel points to יקרא
, then yes, it is "active" (though Qal is the preferred term for "active" verbs in Hebrew).
However the Masoretic vowel points are the Masoretes own interpretation of the words in the Tanakh, and here, יקרא
could also be pointed יִקּרֵא
, which is the niphal
form of the verb קרא
, which has a passive
meaning. So his accusation that "Trinitarian translations changed the verb, “called” into a passive voice" is incorrect - they didn't change anything, but have read the Hebrew a different, yet acceptable, way.
Even if we took the Masoretic vowel points as they are, the subject is easily not explicitly stated.
We have a parallel to this in Genesis 25:26:ויקרא שמו יעקבAnd his name was called 'Jacob
Again the Masoretes here pointed יקרא
as a Qal rather than Niphal - yet Niphal works here as well, and as a Qal the subject is unidentified.
Also it has long been noted that Biblical Hebrew didn't have "tenses", so his appeal to the child apparently have being "already born" based on the Hebrew verb "tenses" is quite laughable. As is his appeal to the Septuagint which not only doesn't follow the traditional Hebrew, but also reads יקרא
as passive rather than active.
His appeal to the DSS manuscript 1QIsaa (the Great Isaiah Scroll) is also wrong. There are no "past tense" verbs, so nothing in the text indicates "a child already in existence"; and though the manuscript reads the perfect קרא
rather than the imperfect יקרא
, it too is easily read passively rather than actively, so his statement that "[t]he word, “called” indicates that a subject named this child" is false.
It's these brazen matter-of-fact statements that aren't true that is the most "glaring concern". The chap clearly has an axe to grind.