my point - no change from the MT.
My point was that the Septuagint predates the birth of Christ, and it was the scripture that had been fulfilled. Looking to the Jews for the proper scripture wording is senseless.
That is a sad exergesis. The LXX use of virgin provides insight as to the intent of the use of Almah and its context - the intent of the passage. Looking to the Jews for proper 'wording' makes no sense in your statement. The LXX was written by Jews as well.
However, did not “Almah” also have the connotation of being unmarried? Is the connotation not strong enough that the notion of a pregnant “Almah” would be scandalous?
Again, LXX provides illumination on the understanding of the use of Almah in pre-Christ Judaism. The both work together supporting the Gospel story of Jesus' conception.
>> That is a sad exergesis. The LXX use of virgin provides insight as to the intent of the use of Almah and its context - the intent of the passage. Looking to the Jews for proper ‘wording’ makes no sense in your statement. The LXX was written by Jews as well. <<
Come on, don’t give me a hard time. I meant modern (or at least post-Christian Jews.)