Hello Andii, Good weekend so far??

          Ok, in your last, you quoted me, ‘If that woman’s virginity were of key importance the writer WOULD have used bethulah’.  You said that wasn’t the point, that Matthew’s usage was "typological" not "prophetic".  Again, here is the problem with that line of thinking: in Isaiah7:14, the passage IS prophetic, there is no way to argue around that.  So if you are RIGHT about Matthew not being prophetic, then Matthew is automaticlly WRONG with his entire approach ANYWAYS, Since the SOURSE he used, WAS being prophetic.  Besides, let me ask you this- if you were right, and that passage was NOT prophetic, then How could it be referring to JESUS??  (Assuming it DID refer to Jesus in the first place, which it didn’t.) 

          Next, you immediately delve into the almah issue again.  You say that it is the norm for almah to be taken to mean virgin.  But you are not getting this idea from JEWS, who speak HEBREW for a LIVING.  That whole concept, that "almah" is normally taken to mean "virgin", is taken from the normal interpretations of that word by most scholars, who happen to be Christian, not Jewish.  Amongst Christian scholars, you are correct.  That concept surely IS the norm, but that does not make it right.  A Christian is automatically biased to interpreting scripture in a way that it will fit his doctrine.  What happened to me, seeing a different interpretation for Isaiah 7 for example, That changed my belief structure, is truely a RARE occurance.  Most Christians are "locked" in to their faith.

          You mentioned that from my own words, claiming that the woman in Isaiah 7:14 was NOT a virgin, was just supposition, as well as what I said about your interpretations of her being a virgin.  You are absolutely right, but still, you are missing the point.  YES- since the passage does not specifically state in so many terms that she is a virgin, then yes, both our opinions are based upon supposition.  The difference is, my interpretation is merely based upon the lack of evidence of her being a virgin, YOUR position, takes an unclear and unprovable passage, and creates a doctrine, that the rest of your religion rests upon.  So my supposition is less than your supposition.  I’m just saying, "There is not enough support to prove she’s a virgin."  You’re saying, "Just because of the possibility of what this one word COULD mean, I will build an entire religion upon the idea."

          But enough bickering back and forth about this philosophy or that- the real issue is not Matthew, the real issue is Isaiah 7.  And so far, not one person that has responded to my words in this post, has actually tried to disprove my claims about what Isaiah 7 says in it’s entirety.  THAT is what I am waiting for.  If you are so right, and I am so wrong, then hit the issue in the heart, and take me through the entire chapter of Isaiah 7, and show me the proper interpretation of each verse, as you progress through the chapter.  As far as the word Almah is concerned, as important as it seems, in the overall outlook of things, it is unimportant.  Let’s just focus on this passage’s interpretation, from verse 1 onward.