The context tells me she's not a virgin which is why it's rendered as "young woman" in many bibles including the Tanakh. You base the translation on the KJV which translated the word from the Greek (parthenos). We both agree that (almah) in CJB is a fine translation but you're interpreting it to mean "virgin" and Jews aren't rendering the word to mean that given the context that follows in 8:1-4.
Lione D' ea: False, let us read Isaiah 7:14 it say's:
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold,
the young woman....? (TCJB)
Lione D' ea: The verse did not tell she is not virgin there because she is in the state of a young, and the young woman there don't had a husband according in verse because once a young woman in the Bible had a husband she cannot considered in the Bible term as
young, but a
woman to testify my statement the Bible interpret itself a young woman once had a husband cannot called as young woman but a woman in Genesis 2:23-24 Read:
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (King James Version)
Lione D' ea: The woman mention in the passage above is the wife of Adam which is Eve whereas Eve in that time is in the state of purity to precise she is virgin.
For in God even both opposite did not mate there, they are married for Him. Concern in Isaiah 7:14 the young woman there is not married how come she is not virgin there. If we say "
young woman" she is in independent state. And she can not commit
fornication in her youth state because she will transgressed the law of God which give to Moses about the good manner in Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Read:
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (King James Version)
Lione D' ea: The young woman which commit fornication will be stone with no mercy, Jews are strict when it comes in the law of Moses. The young woman you mention is not married because it did not state there as
woman how come she is not virgin that is my answer.
And this is a false accusation. The word means (young woman). It would seem you're guilty of what you're accusing me of if you continue to render it meaning "virgin" knowing full well it's not "virgin" in the strict sense of the word. This is amplified in the KJV where Isaiah 7:14 seems to be the only place (almah) is rendered virgin. elsewhere the KJV substitutes the meaning.
Lione D' ea: IF we are speaking
in the strict sense of the word as you said brother, you cannot say the young woman there is not a virgin because the word use in that woman which mention in chapter 7:14 there
is a young, she is in the state of
natural purity in the sense of the Bible. The verse did not tell she is married there nor someone intercourse with her, and I not refute the fact both version TCJB and King James Version what it renders there because you cannot say the young woman there is not virgin because it did not state
woman which she had husband back then. About the accusing, I never accuse anybody without evidence to prove in my opponent, as scripture say's:
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD'S house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD'S house,
all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word: (King James Version)
Lione D' ea: The passage you are referring she is not virgin did not tell you she is not virgin that is my answer.
The fact of the matter is, in context, it is her second son and NO...it doesn't have to say it was her second son nor does it have to state she was already a mother. This went without saying because that had been established in 7:3...and like you're finally admitting...7:14 doesn't even say she was giving birth to her ("first") son.
Lione D' ea: You are wrong in thinking brother, because all my statement I was answer will stand in the end, not just like you now admitting which it is not second son. Concern in Isaiah 7:14 the child there wasn't exist yet during the event has happened while the person named Maher-shalal-hash-baz was exist there already because according in verse 3 it say's:
And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son,
and the Lord said to me, "Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. (TCJB)
Lione D' ea: Maher-shalal-hash-baz was exist there because the Lord ordered the speaker here to
call his name therefore he was exist while in chapter 9:5 the son is
yet coming. The solid prove Maher-shalal-hash-baz is not the Immanuel is because he is a man not God that is my answer.
You can't be "in a state of conceiving" and already "be with child".
Lione D' ea: Let us read Isaiah 7:14 it say's:
Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman
is with child, and she
shall bear a son, and she
shall call his name Immanuel. (TCJB)
Lione D' ea: The word
BE did not appeared in the passage brother can you elaborate what you meant?
