[marinamuffy]

I have heard that the Hebrew could refer to either but my response would be “Why would a young woman conceiving and giving birth qualify as a ‘sign’ from ‘the Lord Himself’”? It would to make more sense for it to be translated as “virgin” in this case if only because it would hardly be unusual for a “young woman” to have a child! I’m sure there are other arguments as well.

[SeekAndFind]

“Why would a young woman conceiving and giving birth qualify as a ‘sign’ from ‘the Lord Himself’”? It would to make more sense for it to be translated as “virgin” in this case if only because it would hardly be unusual for a “young woman” to have a child! I’m sure there are other arguments as well.

Therein lies the rub. Skeptics (or even Jews who do not accept Jesus as Messiah ) would argue that this particular prophecy of Isaiah is REALLY referring to an actual historical woman who gave birth to a boy who was REALLY named Emmanuel.

Hence the following texts after verse 14 --

15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

In other words skeptics and unbelieving Jews would say that it is a PURELY HISTORICAL statement made by Isaiah unrelated to Jesus Christ. Christians are simply force-fitting the historical statement made to make it fit Jesus.