More specifically, at the use of "almah" in that verse. I understand perfectly that this word describes a young, unmarried woman. Christians & Messianic Jews observe that such a woman is expected to be a virgin under Mosaic Law. So, while "almah" does not mean "virgin" directly, it strongly implies it.
However, as you may know, the Septuagint uses the word "parthenos" in place of "almah" at Isaiah 7:14. "Parthenos" means "virgin" and nothing else. This proves your forefathers understood the key element of "almah" in this verse was that the young woman would be a virgin.
So why all the fuss? Do you deny this virgin would miraculously have a son simply to attack Christianity? Is this fair, given the evidence?
Secondly, what kind of "sign" from God would it be for a non-virgin have a son? That happens each and every day.
Thirdly, her son was to be called "Immanuel." To whom do you think this refers? No one in the Tanakh was called by this name OR by this title.
2007-03-13
01:45:38
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Suzanne: YPA
7