What is your proof? There are no existing LXX manuscripts of the major prophets that are prechristian.
In each case, however, it refers to an UNMARRIED woman. If the unmarried woman is not a virgin, then she is a fornicator. Do you mean to suggest that the liberation of Israel would come from fornication? See Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8 where “almah” is contrasted with married women.
We are not told that the woman in Isaiah 7 is unmarried. A young woman can be married or unmarried, a virgin or not a virgin. In the Song of Songs, the young women are in fact married to Solomon. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 cuncubines, so only a portion of them are listed in the Song of Songs. The only case where the sexual status is known is Rebekah because in Gen 24:16 she is called a virgin betulah.
You’ll notice that when Deuteronomy 22:23 wants to refer to a woman who is NOT single, the word “na ‘arah” is used.
Not true. Do a word study on na'arah. It does not indicate whether or not she is single.
... “if a man find her in the city and lie with her,” that is. There is nothing in the bible against a virgin being pregnant.
If the woman is bethrothed to another...there ABSOLUTELY IS something wrong with a virgin being made pregnant...from another man or whatever! Again...G-d doesnt violate His own Torah comandments. He isnt going to knock-up a woman that is bethored to a man. Non-sexually or otherwise. G-d would certainly know He would be putting the woman in great jeapordy since His own law forbids it and the woman would be stoned. G-d would do that? G-d forbid!
No, not to King Ahaz. But then you’re presuming your argument.
Presuming my argument? No...it is called the p'shat or plain meaning of the text. It can easily be determined by looking at chapters 7-10 what the events were...and what the sign was that Ahaz was told to look for...
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin(Young Woman) will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.
There is your sign...The age of the boy. They will be in times of plenty (curds and honey) and before he knows right from wrong...the two Kings would get wacked. BTW, did Jesus being god, have to learn right from wrong? If he was god in the flesh he would always know right from wrong.
How would Ahaz know of a virgin birth anyway? Did he get a note from a doctor? And if there were 2 virgin births, one during the time of Ahaz and another 700 years later, doesnt that mean that Jesus virgin birth was not the first? And why was there no record either written or in the talmud about this original virgin birth that occurred in Ahaz's time?
This is all an eisegetic rendering of the Hebrew text that can not be supported in truth.
>> Not true. Do a word study on na’arah. It does not indicate whether or not she is single. <<
That’s my point. Na’arah is the word which simply means a young woman. Almah is the word to suggest she is marriageable.
>> What is your proof? There are no existing LXX manuscripts of the major prophets that are prechristian. <<
What’s YOUR proof? The DSS agree with the LXX over the MT 85% of the time, Isaiah notwithstanding.
>> We are not told that the woman in Isaiah 7 is unmarried. <<
Yeah, we are. Almah doesn’t necessarily mean “virgin” but it does mean, “maiden (i.e., marriageble woman).” If you’ll deny that, there’s no point having any discussion, because then anything can mean anything.
>> There is your sign...The age of the boy. They will be in times of plenty (curds and honey) and before he knows right from wrong...the two Kings would get wacked. <<
What boy? Just any child of any woman? How is that a sign? Before he reaches the age of reason? Is he born now? Or was he to be expected twenty years later? See, this is the way of prophecy: Something happens in the near time to establish the authority of the prophet. But there’s always a hidden meaning in something which doesn’t quite make sense... Like did David really mean he would never see the grave? You can brush it away if you choose: he must’ve meant he wouldn’t see the grave any time soon.
>> If the woman is bethrothed to another...there ABSOLUTELY IS something wrong with a virgin being made pregnant...from another man or whatever! Again...G-d doesnt violate His own Torah comandments. <<
Funny, you keep saying that it’s His own commendment, but the commandment you cite simply doesn’t say what you assume it to mean. There’s nothing that says a woman shall not become pregnant while betrothed.