Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isaiah is a weird book anyway. Did you know the part on italics below is taken verbatim from Canaanite scripture (Ugaritic text)?

“On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” (Is. 27:1)

It’s so odd Jewish pp is obsessed with the text of Christian scripture when this stuff is rampant in her own backyard.

Jesus was a Jew as were his disciples. Jesus lived and died a Jew.

? Christianity and Judaism are now different religions.

It’s icky that a Jewish poster is going after Christianity. Christians with a few exceptions here are silent about various things in the OT.

Did someone here identify as Jewish? I missed that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isaiah is a weird book anyway. Did you know the part on italics below is taken verbatim from Canaanite scripture (Ugaritic text)?

“On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” (Is. 27:1)

It’s so odd Jewish pp is obsessed with the text of Christian scripture when this stuff is rampant in her own backyard.

Jesus was a Jew as were his disciples. Jesus lived and died a Jew.

? Christianity and Judaism are now different religions.

It’s icky that a Jewish poster is going after Christianity. Christians with a few exceptions here are silent about various things in the OT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

I do not think it's "moving the goal posts" to answer this by saying if Jesus was someone fathered by God of a virgin, then no, there was no such person.
If Jesus was a regular person whose sayings and actions are detailed in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then yes, he was very likely a real historical figure.

Jesus nevertheless said his mother was a Virgin
I see influences of Hinduism and eastern religion in his teaching

I’m not sure about Hinduism but that’s interesting, could you elaborate? Various modern writers have found compatibility with Buddhism.

There were obviously Greco-Roman influences in Jesus’ era.

He lived in a time when Israel was at crossroads between east and west, there were many travelers
During his birth the 3 wise men, travelers from the east
Also the parable about the traveler who got robbed, when he was asked who is my fellow man
Obviously there was some trade going on to make such a long journey worthwhile
European Gypsys are a people who originally migrated from India

The Greco Roman influence is also there, but a little subtle. That came later to the religion

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isaiah is a weird book anyway. Did you know the part on italics below is taken verbatim from Canaanite scripture (Ugaritic text)?

“On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” (Is. 27:1)

It’s so odd Jewish pp is obsessed with the text of Christian scripture when this stuff is rampant in her own backyard.

Jesus was a Jew as were his disciples. Jesus lived and died a Jew.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isaiah is a weird book anyway. Did you know the part on italics below is taken verbatim from Canaanite scripture (Ugaritic text)?

“On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” (Is. 27:1)

It’s so odd Jewish pp is obsessed with the text of Christian scripture when this stuff is rampant in her own backyard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Exactly -- I can't understand religious people bothering to try to prove the accuracy of the Bible, when religion is all about faith.

God didn't answer your prayers? Ah -- well God knows more what you need than you do -- he is God after all.

You don't understand God sometimes? Well, you're not meant to. You're only human. He's God!

Yeah. Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed or not? It’s the story that’s the inspiration. There are aspects that obviously aren’t true (raising from dead, etc) so why does it matter if any of it is true.

I think a lot of religious people are taught as children that their religious is true, as in factual -- or at least they take it that way. I know I did. If a adult teaches it to you, and you learn it, then it's a fact. We also learned about faith, but there was no distinction made between fact and faith in religious training.

In contrast, in academic subjects, everything was either factual or fiction. There was no faith in arithmetic or grammar. And it was made clear whether a book you were reading was fact or fiction.

You’re really a one-hit wonder with this stuff, aren’t you? You need some new material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

I do not think it's "moving the goal posts" to answer this by saying if Jesus was someone fathered by God of a virgin, then no, there was no such person.
If Jesus was a regular person whose sayings and actions are detailed in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John then yes, he was very likely a real historical figure.

Jesus nevertheless said his mother was a Virgin
I see influences of Hinduism and eastern religion in his teaching

I’m not sure about Hinduism but that’s interesting, could you elaborate? Various modern writers have found compatibility with Buddhism.

There were obviously Greco-Roman influences in Jesus’ era.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Wrong. “Young woman” was only pretty much synonymous with “virgin” if the young woman was unmarried. A young married woman is still an “almah” and presumably not a virgin. Moreover, the United Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) which publishes the New American Bible is most definitely NOT a “hostile (Jewish) source” as you put it. It’s a Catholic source which has changed the translation of “almah” from “virgin” to “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 in the latest edition of the New American Bible because “almah” means “young woman,” not “virgin.”

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

DP here but fine... I don't think the Isaiah prophesy is important to the story or adds any credibility at all. The Christians belive Mary was a virgin, so that's clear enough. The story would continue on that basis without the Isaiah prophesy anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Isaiah is a weird book anyway. Did you know the part on italics below is taken verbatim from Canaanite scripture (Ugaritic text)?

“On that day the LORD with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.” (Is. 27:1)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Wrong. “Young woman” was only pretty much synonymous with “virgin” if the young woman was unmarried. A young married woman is still an “almah” and presumably not a virgin. Moreover, the United Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) which publishes the New American Bible is most definitely NOT a “hostile (Jewish) source” as you put it. It’s a Catholic source which has changed the translation of “almah” from “virgin” to “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 in the latest edition of the New American Bible because “almah” means “young woman,” not “virgin.”

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

DP here but fine... I don't think the Isaiah prophesy is important to the story or adds any credibility at all. The Christians belive Mary was a virgin, so that's clear enough. The story would continue on that basis without the Isaiah prophesy anyway.

Anonymous wrote: It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Wrong. “Young woman” was only pretty much synonymous with “virgin” if the young woman was unmarried. A young married woman is still an “almah” and presumably not a virgin. Moreover, the United Conference of Catholic Bishops (UCCB) which publishes the New American Bible is most definitely NOT a “hostile (Jewish) source” as you put it. It’s a Catholic source which has changed the translation of “almah” from “virgin” to “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 in the latest edition of the New American Bible because “almah” means “young woman,” not “virgin.”

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Exactly -- I can't understand religious people bothering to try to prove the accuracy of the Bible, when religion is all about faith.

God didn't answer your prayers? Ah -- well God knows more what you need than you do -- he is God after all.

You don't understand God sometimes? Well, you're not meant to. You're only human. He's God!

Yeah. Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed or not? It’s the story that’s the inspiration. There are aspects that obviously aren’t true (raising from dead, etc) so why does it matter if any of it is true.

I think a lot of religious people are taught as children that their religious is true, as in factual -- or at least they take it that way. I know I did. If a adult teaches it to you, and you learn it, then it's a fact. We also learned about faith, but there was no distinction made between fact and faith in religious training.

In contrast, in academic subjects, everything was either factual or fiction. There was no faith in arithmetic or grammar. And it was made clear whether a book you were reading was fact or fiction.

You’re really a one-hit wonder with this stuff, aren’t you? You need some new material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Exactly -- I can't understand religious people bothering to try to prove the accuracy of the Bible, when religion is all about faith.

God didn't answer your prayers? Ah -- well God knows more what you need than you do -- he is God after all.

You don't understand God sometimes? Well, you're not meant to. You're only human. He's God!

Yeah. Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed or not? It’s the story that’s the inspiration. There are aspects that obviously aren’t true (raising from dead, etc) so why does it matter if any of it is true.

I think a lot of religious people are taught as children that their religious is true, as in factual -- or at least they take it that way. I know I did. If a adult teaches it to you, and you learn it, then it's a fact. We also learned about faith, but there was no distinction made between fact and faith in religious training.

In contrast, in academic subjects, everything was either factual or fiction. There was no faith in arithmetic or grammar. And it was made clear whether a book you were reading was fact or fiction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp with the link. It worked fine for me when I clicked on it in the post above. Here it is again:

https://knowingscripture.com/articles/is-virgin-the-correct-translation-of-isaiah-7-14

Almah is used a total of 9 times in the Bible. “When the context does offer a hint, as in Genesis 24:43, alma does clearly refer to a “virgin.” Another example is Song of Solomon 6:8, “There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and [almot, plural] without number.” Here virgins (almot) are distinguished from queens and concubines.”

No, as TIME says, “almah” clearly means “young woman, virgin or not:

https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/03/04/controversial-bible-revision-about-that-virgin-thing/

Instead of flinging more links, how about you address the points about almah only being used 9 times, and in some of those cases it clearly refers to a virgin. Is this the battle of the links?

In those days, all young girls were considered to be virgins, unless they were concubines

yeah, I'm a DP, but in those days a young woman was pretty synonymous with virgin. Maybe the prophesy of Isaiah is somewhat questionable for other reasons, but it was pretty much understood a young woman was a virgin. No?

DP and +1. PP can link to all the hostile (Jewish) sources she wants. It’s clear almah was interpreted both as “unmarried woman” AND “virgin” during the first century AD, including twice in the Hebrew Bible and also in the Septaguint. PP’s explanation that only one isolated Jewish translator looked at that particular part of the Septaguint is unconvincing, and she never addressed the link showing other instances in the OT where almah clearly referred to a virgin.

Anyway, these definitional arguments are getting it all back-a$$wards. Wherever you come down on this, there was a very early Christian tradition that Mary was a virgin. Instead of asking whether Matthew tried to shoehorn Jesus’ birth into Isaiah 7:14, Christians marvel at the miracle and find after the fact that it’s compatible with Isaiah. That’s called “faith.” Ask any Jew confronted with conflicting archeological evidence about Abraham.

Exactly -- I can't understand religious people bothering to try to prove the accuracy of the Bible, when religion is all about faith.

God didn't answer your prayers? Ah -- well God knows more what you need than you do -- he is God after all.

You don't understand God sometimes? Well, you're not meant to. You're only human. He's God!

Yeah. Does it really matter if Jesus actually existed or not? It’s the story that’s the inspiration. There are aspects that obviously aren’t true (raising from dead, etc) so why does it matter if any of it is true.