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.
Correction: three Hebrew terms should read "two Hebrew terms"
But we both agree that the Jewish authorities here have gone out of their way to deliberately mistranslate this word as well as words in other Messianic prophecies, right? Even Aquila used the word "neanis" for "almah" in his translation and that was a deliberate mistranslation.
The point is that the Jews, even here in this passage, could have altered the text but didn't? They could have substituted the word "naarah" for "almah" when making copies of the Hebrew text, but they didn't. They kept a word in there that they had to try to explain away with scholastic rhetoric. Their text is right but their translation is wrong.
According to Uncle Chip's theory, the LXX was retro-written to fit the NT; in other words, it is a forgery.
No, it should read: "According to Paul Kahle, famous Bible scholar who spent years studying the Septuagint, the formulators of the Septuagint made it conform to the NT".
And Origen, as we all know, was the master of "forgeries", was he not? And all Septuagints today trace their pedigree to his fifth column, right? Beware of Alexandrians bearing translations.