Not interested in doing your homework for you, sonny, absent a hint that plain Biblical data neccessarily means anything to you anymore, if it ever did.
You're in a rationality-destroying system that tells you that "Jerusalem" *really* means "the Christian church, composed of Jew and Gentile, and with no specific geographical referent" -- and you want me to debate Hebrew with you, which you don't even know?
Please. I have a life.
Dan
Last time I heard this complaint, it was from a guy who objected to my correcting the King James Version. He didn't like how I eviscerated his sermon text from under him when I pointed out that gnwsiV didn't mean "science" in the sense he used it. He accused me of putting myself above the Bible, since we couldn't possibly understand Greek anymore. (Which is baloney - I do understand Greek).
His complaint had no more basis in fact than yours does. I subscribe to "plain Biblical data" as much as anyone on this board; I just refuse to be bound by traditional translation decisions. If evidence points towards a better rendering, I will take it.
Now, the Reformed faith is anything but a "rationality-destroying system." Let's see. Reformed theology has given us Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Francis Schaeffer, Strong, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and a whole host of others. Dispensationalism has given us Scofield, Lindsay, and LaHaye. I'll take Reformed theology.
As regards the Hebrew, I am asking you to point me to a reputable source that tells me that almah is unambiguous. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains both say that almah is ambiguous. So do the NET Bible translator's notes. I am in good company here.