FatherMithras

It's like in other languages. In latin, gladius can mean short sword. It can "imply" penis also. You can say maiden "implies" she'd be a virgin. But since women got married yound it's a humongous stretch (cause maidens ended up getting sex-ized). However, as noted above bethulah is the word for virgin, like we would use it.

I wanted an apology for you ignoring the facts based on your bias and accusing me of making a fallacious argument. You were wrong. We've shown you the correct word. You were making a personal attack on me, and I'd like it if you'd apologize. You seem to attack people fairly often here at iidb, AND to make fallacious arguments that are made up and not supported by facts.

Please stop doing both, k?

Diogenes the Cynic

Spin would probably be a better person to ask about this. My languages are Greek and Latin, not Hebrew, but in the reading I've been able to do on this, bethulah may possibly be used to refer to women who are chaste, or who do not have sex, but are not necessarily virgins. I believe the term may have been applied, on occasion, to widows, for instance.

Almah always means "young woman." A young woman can be a virgin, just like a young woman can be an Australian, but it would be ridiculous to suggest that it should be specifically translated as such with no context.

The only way to specifically say "virgin" is to say bethulah, even if sometimes a bethulah was just a woman who wasn't sexually active.

ISVfan

First of all you are wrong neither of these words means something diehard. Buckshot you are correct. First off there are several instances in the OT where almah had to mean virgin ie Genesis 24:43 (Rebekah) or Exodus 2:8 (Miriam). Also bethulah is clearly not always a "virgin" as you assert see Joel 1:18.
Many times we have to look at the context. My friend explained this to me"explained to me that an almah was a high-quality young woman but not necessarily a virgin. She could be a newlywed...but he said the context is the guide, I.E. "Moshe has a daughter, an almah, living in his home." He said that if the almah were single, it was a gimme that she was a virgin. I believe the KJV men & others who wrote "virgin" in Isaiah were quite right, as they were using an overview of all Scripture to help shape their translations" So I think this answers the problem.

Diogenes the Cynic

Isaiah 7:14 does not say that the almah was unmarried. In fact, its says that she was already pregnant which would imply that she was married.

Moreover, the almah was a character in that story. The baby was born in that story. The passage has nothing to do with the Messiah. If your friend doesn't know that, then he's extremely uneducated about his own religion and about his own Bible.

FatherMithras

It's "double" fulfilling of prophecy. It's the main problem that messiah wanters seem to forget. In the stories of the OT the prophecies were already fulfilled.

As for IsVfan, that explanation still fails to account for why God used a word that "could imply" virgin, instead of a word that "almost definately" means virgin in every case. once again, the word used means a young woman, plenty of whom got married and had children at that age. Nothing unusual and that sentence doesn't implies virginity. You can try and insert it, but that's incredibly weak. God failed to use the proper word apparantly. The word that means virgin (except in rare instances) and is closest to concrete wasn't used. Instead he used a word that in the context could only be interpretted that way after the claim was made and even then doesn't hold up.

FatherMithras

Not what it says though, so argument doesn't work.

You can believe whatever you want. but the burden of proof makes your argument sink until you show evidence that their translation that doesn't use the correct version of the word is right. Not to mention the fact it was mistranslated NOT IN THE KJV of the Bible, but in the septuagit. once again, please read on your arguments before you make such fatal mistakes in your understanding.

Remember, the Jews AT THE TIME, who heard Christians citing this as prophecy for virgin birth, opposed it. They said "That's a mistranslation" and showed the hebrew texts to demonstrate it. That's why the Jews went back to writing everything in Hebrew (which became a requirement for a book to be canon) and abondened Greek (which they'd begun using due to the hellenistic culture they were in. That's also why te christians used the Greek instead of the originals. Tells you something.

ISVfan

A christian friend actually said that you are correct he said Isaiah 7:14 isn't actually even a passage talking about a prophesy for Christ. So I'm going to read up and find out if this is true.

Nialler

Try some extra full stops. Your sentences have been running into each other recently.

You do realise what you have just posted, don't you? You have validated the doubts that have been expressed about your source. Looks like the rebuttals made here were correct.