When I noticed Isa 49:7 was not listed in this brother’s fine work charting Messiah’s rejection, particularly by His own nation (see below link), I immediately suspected that it has suffered the same fate in translation as Isa 49:5. I knew it would only take a slight pluralizing of the singular, or some such adroit, ever so slight (perhaps even technically permissible) alteration, to obscure entirely the import and implication, so not surprised (see comparison of translations in below link).
If I didn’t know how much it pleases the Lord, and is even commanded, to show Messiah’s fulfillment of the OT prophecies, I would look for some other source of apologetic to convince Jews, such as love, NT revelation just on its own, or martyrdom, etc., because “the devil is in the details” of almost every significant translation question as well as in everything else. In fact, one invariably finds he’s already, long since, been on the job fixing everything up before you even get there.
All goes to convince me even further, that for all the mockery and dismissal it receives from the academic community, it’s so amazing how often the KJV gets it right, not just in Daniel but on messianic prophecy, especially in the delicate nuances of translation that militate against what I’m almost tempted to call a cover up (try seeing how that suggestion flies).
Quite convinced personally that God chose a particular translation, or at least a particular history of manuscript transmission (the martyr’s bible) to marvelously preserve against the odds. From the looks of it, He has pretty much let men have their way with some of the others that do not seem to demonstrate such marvelous preservation. Don’t tell anyone I said that, though; it wouldn’t be any use for them to know more of my unscholarly, unjustifiable dogmatism. :-) For sure, this war of words won’t be won by anything less than a mighty anointing, appropriately, a corporate anointing.