Ok, isaiah says almah (young woman) not virgin (bthuwlah), the woman in Isaiah is already pregnant.and SHE (not they) calls him Emanuel. Almah is also in proverbs 30.19-20. Isaiah is about the division of the kingdom into 2, northern Israel and southern judah. Northern Israel teams up with Syria to fight against Judah, so picture this because the kingdom of Judah is in immediate danger. So how would this make sense, God's reply "Don't worry there is going to be a virgin birth of the Messiah in 700 years time). It makes no sense given the topic. Sign in the Torah are always visible, ie Noahs rainbow, it isn't miraculous but you can "see it." A virgin birth miraculous but you can't see it, so it wouldn't be a sign. The sign is actually in Isaiah 7: 15-16 eating curds and honey (doesn't happen in wartime), and a child old enough to know right from wrong. The two kingdoms you dread will be laid waste. So what is the sign? The age of the child. Who is the child? 7:3 God says to Isaiah go out to meet ahaz, you and your son shear-jashub (which means a remnant will return) this is the child, the child, she called Emanuel (God is with you). Hence, they'd win they'd return because God is with them. Isaiah 8:3 Isaiah is intimate (sex) with his wife the prophetess and she conceived, and the Lord said call him maher-shalal-hash-baz (Quicken the loot, hasten the booty) This is the same child as Emanuel. In Isaiah 14 the wife/mum names him, but here God wants Isaiah to name him. 8:4 The boy knows how to say mother and father, the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria. The exact same prophecy, the 2 kingdoms defeated by Assyria. Isaiah 8:18 the reason God gave me children are for SIGNS, in Israel from the Lord of hosts who dwells on Mount Zion. And just for further emphasis in Hosea, the kingdom was doomed because the king was not obedient to God, Hosea 1: 8-9 he marries a prostitute, the children's names Lo- Ruhamah (no pity) and Gomer (completion). The kingdom was destroyed. It's about context. I have never paid much attention to the OT, certainly not understood what the Torah actually says. But things have started to unravel, so I thought I'd start asking others.

Wow! What a huge wall of text! Here is what I found; "Isaiah 7 absolutely has an immediate historical meaning: the “sign” was a child born in Ahaz’s time whose age would mark the fall of Israel and Aram. Almah means “young woman,” and Isaiah’s own children are explicitly called signs (Isa 8:18), so your reading fits the 8th?century context. Christians don’t deny that. They read Isaiah 7 the way they read many OT passages — with a near fulfillment (Ahaz’s crisis) and a later, fuller fulfillment in the Messiah. The Septuagint translated almah as parthenos (“virgin”), which is why Matthew connects the verse to Jesus. So historically, the prophecy reassured Ahaz. Theologically, Christians see it pointing forward to Christ. Both layers can coexist without canceling each other."

Except Isaiah 8:3 describes having sex with his "wife," the same "almah: young woman not "bthuwlah," virgin, the same act, as in 7:14. Verse 8:3 And I was "Va'akrav el-haneviah, intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son, so how on earth can this be a sign of the virgin birth of Jesus?

"Isaiah 7 has an immediate historical meaning: the sign was a child born in Ahaz’s time whose age would mark the fall of Israel and Aram. Almah means young woman, not necessarily virgin, and Isaiah’s own children are explicitly called signs (Isa 8:18). Christians accept this historical context but read the passage with two layers: a near-term fulfillment in Ahaz’s crisis, and a later, theological fulfillment in the Messiah. The Christian link to Jesus comes from the Septuagint, which translated almah as parthenos (“virgin”), and Matthew quotes that Greek version. So historically the prophecy reassured Ahaz, while theologically Christians see it as pointing forward to Christ. Both meanings can coexist without canceling each other."

But then the text proves the septuagint wrong. Because in 7:14 if you read that as virgin woman, which is almah meaning young woman, but say anyway virgin, 8:3 beyond the shadow of a doubt, is speaking of the same woman who is Isaiahs wife, who conceived the son through sex with her husband, they were intimate and she conceived. So one 8:3 shows you the woman in 7:14 was not a virgin, she had sex to conceived the child. So to conclude having read 7:14 and 8:3 this is Isaiahs wife who is a young woman, a prophetess, who Issiah makes love with, and who conceived her son. There is No virgin birth prophecy in this full stop. Her son she called Emanuel, was conceived through intercourse, Jesus was not, therefore Isaiah cannot be a sign of the Messiah Jesus.

The septuagint isn't wrong, The text in Isaiah 8:3 absolutely shows the historical child was conceived through normal intercourse. Christians don’t deny that, and it doesn’t make the Septuagint “wrong.” It just shows Isaiah 7:14 had an immediate fulfillment in Isaiah’s own time. The Christian claim isn’t that Isaiah’s wife was a virgin. It’s that the Hebrew word in 7:14 (almah, young woman) was translated in the Greek Septuagint as parthenos, which can mean virgin. Matthew quotes that Greek version, not the Hebrew. So the Christian reading is a second?layer, typological application, not a denial of the historical one. So 8:3 doesn’t disprove anything—it confirms the near-term sign for Ahaz. The Christian use of Isaiah 7:14 is about a later, theological fulfillment, not the original pregnancy.

I'm missing your point Dalcocono, it might be me, I am trying to comprehend this, but if a child is conceived by intercourse I don't know how it can be a sign of Mary being a virgin? I mean there's plenty of almah in the bible. So the Septuagint, was translated from ancient hebrew scripture in Egypt, by Hellenistic Jews, but these sources were not identical to the later standardized Masoretic Text and pre-date the Dead Sea Scrolls, do you think either one could have deliberately changed the texts, I know Isaiah 8:23 isn't in the bible.? I found this https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/almah-virgin-and-parthenos/ https://uasvbible.org/2025/05/08/the-greek-septuagint-its-origins-development-and-role-in-old-testament-textual-criticism/ It says the Septuagint was not a literal translation

Oh sheesh it's not even that simple, read this aswell, so much for the warnings in the OT and NT to not add or take away, we don't even know if it's translated properly. https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/demdfr/is_the_septuagint_more_reliable_than_the_masoretic/

Because the Jewish canon was not yet fixed in Jesus’ time: The Septuagint was widely used by Jews in the Greek speaking world. Early Christians inherited that version. Later rabbinic Judaism narrowed the canon to the 24 books of the Masoretic Text. This explains why Christian Old Testaments and Jewish Bibles differ in content and order.

The Septuagint was a translation ordered by Ptolomy 2 of egypt. 70 jewish scholars all worked seperatly to translate the books into greek. When they all agreed on the translated words, it was then accepted. It is accurate and more ancient than the masoretic