No I'm not, you are missing the point. The whole issue is what Isaiah wrote down and meant. The best evidence of that is the Septugent because it shows us what the Jews closest in time to Isaiah understood him to have written and meant. Further, the Apostles quoted the word "virgin" here approvingly. ALL of the ancient evidence we have unerringly points to "virgin". The fact that contemporary academics have a contemporary interpretation of a 10th century text pales in comparison to what Jewish scholars of 200 BC understood Isaish to have written and meant. Further, the context of the passage that this would be a "sign" makes no sense if the word is "maiden" but complete sense if it means "virgin". And combined with the warnings of Tertullian and Origen this is powerful evidence that the words of the mesoretic text were intentionally corrupted.
You wrote:
“No I’m not, you are missing the point.”
Are you now saying they are the same? Make up your mind. If the two texts are the same, then one wouldn’t be in Greek while the other is in Hebrew. They are separated by centuries. They uses words with DIFFERENT meanings in a number of cases.
“The whole issue is what Isaiah wrote down and meant.”
He wrote down the word that is known to mean “young woman” - almah. He could have just as easily used “betulah” which definitely means virgin.
“The best evidence of that is the Septugent because it shows us what the Jews closest in time to Isaiah understood him to have written and meant.”
No. They were separated by centuries and using two DIFFERENT LANGUAGES and only Isaiah was inspired. The Septuagint translators were not. I think we can say exactly what I said previously: “Most likely they believed that was a better translation according to traditional understandings that had developed since the text was originally inspired.”
“Further, the Apostles quoted the word “virgin” here approvingly.”
They quoted the verse and not the word. 350 OT verses appear in the NT. 300 of them are from the Septuagint - which makes sense since the Mediterranean world used Greek so often.
“ALL of the ancient evidence we have unerringly points to “virgin”.”
No. All the evidence about the ACTUAL HEBREW TEXT shows almah means young woman.
“The fact that contemporary academics have a contemporary interpretation of a 10th century text pales in comparison to what Jewish scholars of 200 BC understood Isaish to have written and meant. Further, the context of the passage that this would be a “sign” makes no sense if the word is “maiden” but complete sense if it means “virgin”.”
It would be a sign either way. You are reading too much into the text and assuming the birth of the Messiah would only be a sign if He was born to a virgin. The Messiah born at all was a sign. Also, you’re forgetting the sign of His name. That’s included in the verse. Do you think a name is not a sign?
” And combined with the warnings of Tertullian and Origen this is powerful evidence that the words of the mesoretic text were intentionally corrupted.”
Actually not. You have produced no evidence at all that that was the case. Passion on your part is not the same thing as evidence.