"The Septuagint, hee parthenos, "a virgin" - a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew bªtuwlaah in Ex 22:16-17; Lev 21:3,14; Deut 22:19,23,28; 32:25; Judg 19:24; 21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius' Concordance); of na`ªraah, a girl, in Gen 24:14,16,55; 34:3 (twice); 1 Kings 1:2; and of `almaah, only in Gen 24:43; and in Isa 7:14."
So the Septuagint "parthenos" was used to translate "almah, bethuwlah, and naarah" from the Hebrew text? If this is true, then the writers of the Septuagint had a broader definition in mind for the word "parthenos" than just "bethuwlah", right? Or was it just a poor choice of a word by the Septuaginters? If "parthenos" is so specific to be only the translation of "bethuwlah", why was it used to translate "naarah" and "almah". The Septuaginters have som "splainin'" to do.
It is clear from all those Barns' references that the three Hebrew terms (batuwlah and naarah) are used interchangeably. In fact, in Deut 22:19, batuwlah and naarah are used in the same verse for one and the same woman and for one and the same concept!
Obviously, the word almah (appearing only in Isa 7:14 and Gen 24;43) is an uncommon term in Hebrew, judging by its usage, because in both instances when it appears in the Bible, it represents a young woman specifically designated by God for His purpose, and is not a "mere" virgn.
If anything, the koine [common] Greek language of the Septuagint fails to distinguish the Hebrew terminology of special grace associated with almah, but so does English.
The rabbinical Hebrew Bible actually goes out of its way to remove any possibility of associating almah with special grace. Thus the English language Tanach translates the same word (almah) as "maiden" in Genesis 23:43 and "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14.
The exact words in Tanach are: "behold, the young woman is with child (Hebrew hareh = pregnant), and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel."
The tense used is Qal, such as "sat, bought, found..." (in other words it is in the past, not present or future. So, the Lord gave a sign to a pregnant young woman; almah also allows for the possibility that a woman may be married and therefore no longer a virgin) that she shall have a son and shall call him Immanuel.
The LXX says "a virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His name Emmanuel."
The difference is not just in the choice of the words, but in the entire sentence. The former makes it nothing special. A "young woman is with a child (pregnant)," while the LXX says "a virgin shall [prophetically] conceive in the womb." Obviously a woman conceiving in the womb can no longer be a virgin.
According to Uncle Chip's theory, the LXX was retro-written to fit the NT; in other words, it is a forgery. Trouble is, all Christian Bibles adhere to this 'forgery,' and not the Hebrew text when it comes to Isa 7:14.
If anyone has a link to the Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah passage, please oblige.
Proverbs 30:19 not only uses almah in a context that makes is not God's special purpose, but also clearly NOT as a virgin.
Seems to me that actually the Prots have some "splainin'" to do, Uncle Chip.