That wasnt your point before...you said it refered to a woman who is not single.
You said You’ll notice that when Deuteronomy 22:23 wants to refer to a woman who is NOT single, the word “na ‘arah” is used.
You are changing your story. Betulah is a when the G-d is specifically referring to a virgin. Na'arah is a very young woman...Almah is a young woman who could also be married. Like the Song of Songs reference you made...you were basically saying that Solomon was fornicating...if you assert that the Alma's were not married to him. So Alma's CAN be married.
What’s YOUR proof? The DSS agree with the LXX over the MT 85% of the time, Isaiah notwithstanding.
Talmud- Megillah 9A ‘R. Judah said: When our teachers permitted Greek, they permitted it only for a scroll of the Torah’.1 This was on account of the incident related in connection with King Ptolemy,2 as it has been taught: ‘It is related of King Ptolemy that he brought together seventy-two elders and placed them in seventy-two [separate] rooms, without telling them why he had brought them together, and he went in to each one of them and said to him, Translate3 for me the Torah of Moses your master.4 G-d then prompted each one of them and they all conceived the same idea and wrote for him....
Flavius Josephus....I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue. Now Eleazar the high priest, one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books.
There are many other proofs. But the burden of proof is upon you
before the end of 100 AD for many many centuries...Judaism existed in the belief the G-d does not become a hypostatic union by taking on humanity into the godhead. Christianity deviated. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you who changed and tampered with the original message.
>> 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).”
I agree that a almah is of marriageble age...that is not a question. It says nothing however of her marital status or her sexual status. For example, if I say, "I just saw a young woman in the grocery store" What did I convey? Is she married or single?....we dont know...could be either. Is she a virgin?...we dont know...could be either!
If I called her a na'arah...we could safely say that she is a virgin...because we know she is very young.
If I call her a betulah...I have some knowlege of her sexual state...she is a virgin.
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?
What boy? Immanuel...so named by his mother in Isaiah 7 and before he reaches the age of knowing right before wrong...the 2 kings were dispatched. We have confirmation of this in II Kings 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated.
Rabbi Singer puts it this way: It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah's declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus' birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense.
Verses 15-16 state that by the time this child reaches the age of maturity ("he knows to reject bad and choose good"), the two warring kings, Pekah and Rezin, will have been removed. We see, in II Kings chapters 15-16, that this prophecy was fulfilled when these two kings were suddenly assassinated. With an understanding of the context of Isaiah 7:14 alone, it is evident that the child born in Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to Jesus or to any future virgin birth. Rather, it is referring to the divine protection that Ahaz and his people would enjoy from their impending destruction at the hands of these two enemies, the northern Kingdom of Israel and Syria.
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.
Huh? You must be kidding...She cant have sex while bethrothed but she can become pregnant by another person? Getting pregnant whether by sex or immaculate conception is the same thing. It is an intimate act being performed apart from the husband and is illegitimate. G-d can not take liberties with another mans wife. That is immoral. G-d is not immoral.
>> That wasnt your point before...you said it refered to a woman who is not single. <<
In the specific usage I cited, it meant a specific woman who wasn’t single.
>> You are changing your story. Betulah is a when the G-d is specifically referring to a virgin. Na’arah is a very young woman...Almah is a young woman who could also be married. Like the Song of Songs reference you made...you were basically saying that Solomon was fornicating.. <<
Read Song of Solomon again...
Chapter 1 is a wedding night. She’s about to lose her Betulah-tude.
Tell me, you whom I love,
where you graze your flock
and where you rest your sheep at midday.
Why should I be like a veiled woman
beside the flocks of your friends?
...We will make you earrings of gold,
studded with silver.
>> But the burden of proof is on *you* <<
Yes it is. That’s why Christ died and rose again, because what God was demonstrating was so shocking. But, of course, I had only been referring to the origin of the Septuagint. And again, I had stated outright that the Septuagint may not have been complete with Ptolemy’s decreed translation, so you need not recite for me the arguments that it wasn’t. But you do have to explain how it is that within a few years of Christ’s death, his apostles could convince Greek Jews of the authenticity of a translation made only after his death. Yes, by the time Paul is out and about, he is authoritatively using the Septuagint to win arguments with Greek Jews; those countrymen of his whom he laments will not hear him are those in Israel: the early Christian churches were considerably composed of diasporic Jews.
>> I agree that a almah is of marriageble age...that is not a question. It says nothing however of her marital status or her sexual status. For example, if I say, “I just saw a young woman in the grocery store” What did I convey? Is she married or single?....we dont know...could be either. Is she a virgin?...we dont know...could be either! <<
Ah, but of course, if a Jewish (or Irish or Italian...) mother tells her son, “I saw a nice young woman in the grocery store,” we know exactly what her purpose is, don’t we? Of course, the mother may only be guessing that she’s single. But in the ancient culture, if you could tell she was young, you could tell she was single. So why would she only say she was young, when what really matters is that she was marriageable? No, the mother wouldn’t know she was a “betulah”; that’s why they had to inspect the bedsheets. But she would know she was an “Almah.”
>> If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by to overwhelming military enemies, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would have been long dead and buried. Such a sign would make no sense. <<
And what sign is Isaiah offering Ahaz, in your interpretation? Truly, Isaiah *IS* telling Ahaz that he will win the battle, but to what purpose? Ahaz was a wicked king who forsook God. And Israel’s respite was both brief and horrifyingly ended. No, Isaiah was ensuring his prophecy would be remembered, so it’s deeper, more significant meaning could be understood.
>> Huh? You must be kidding...She cant have sex while bethrothed but she can become pregnant by another person? Getting pregnant whether by sex or immaculate conception is the same thing. It is an intimate act being performed apart from the husband and is illegitimate. G-d can not take liberties with another mans wife. That is immoral. G-d is not immoral. <<
You write as if Christians believe that God and Mary had a sensual thing together, like the Mormons believe. Joseph wasn’t alienated by Mary’s conception, like a jilter lover, he was brought closer to God, which is the real longing people seek through intimacy with each other. If I love God, I do not love my wife less, I love her more. My wife’s body and soul belong to God, and I trust Him to do with her — and I — as he pleases, because I know that there is nothing impure, selfish, covetous, exploitative in Him.
If another man were to have sex with my wife, I should want to kill him, for exploiting her, and turning her against me. That is why one reason God commands against fornication and adultery. But what complaint have I against God if she loves Him, and through that love for Him learns how to love me better?
Honestly, usually I enjoy a good theological debate or discussion with Jews, since I usually learn much. But you write as if you are very shallow, like many of us Christians: more exercised in apologetics than love for God.