Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy of the Messiah (contrary to claims by Infidels)

Con claims that "virgin" is a mistranslation of "almah," but this is not true. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 200 B.C. or before predates all existing Hebrew manuscripts we have of Isaiah, and is itself based on an even earlier Hebrew text. It was used by the early Christians, especially Paul, and at Isaiah 7:14 it has the word "virgin" (παρθενος - "parthenos"), showing that in Matthew's day this is what the text said. Matthew was a lot closer to both the Greek and Hebrew texts available in the first century C.E., and in a better position to know what they said than commentors who came later. So the oldest text agrees that Isaiah was talking about a virgin. In fact, even the "almah" – the "maiden" or "young girl," was usually a virgin among Jews in pre-Christian times. "Almah (עלמה) or plural: alamot (עלמות) is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl." (http://www.google.com...) Since Jewish custom held that a woman young was to remain a virgin till marriage (Deu 22:13-21), even such a young woman (almah) would normally be a virgin, hence, Matthew is perfectly justified in his rendering weather the Hebrew of his day said betulah (virgin) or almah (maiden). Con goes on to use Deuteronomy 22:23-34 in his argument that for Mary to get pregnant by God would constitute adultery since she was engaged to Joseph, but this passage is talking about having sex outside of one's marriage, that's what adultery is - "sex" outside of one's marriage union, but since Mary was not having sex she couldn't be guilty of adultery. (Luke 1:34) Adultery must also involve sexual relations with the opposite sex, but since neither God the Father or the Holy Spirit who were involved in her pregnancy are members of the opposite sex (but are spirit), this miracle can't constitute adultery. (Luke 1:35) Con wants to know how a baby born 700 years after Ahaz could be a "sign" to him, well, it wasn't. Ahaz rejected the sign, and so God gave the sign, not to Ahaz specifically, but to "the house of David." (Isaiah 7:13-14) Ahaz no longer existed when Jesus was born, but the house of David sure did. This brings up a question I'd like Con to answer: if this young woman (almah) wasn't a virgin, then how was this quite normal, non-miraculous birth supposed to be a sign? What would be so special about that? Young women were giving birth for thousands of years! Why would the prophet point to something so natural and unspectacular as a "sign"? A literal virgin birth makes more sense of the text in terms of the prophet's use of this birth as a special sign. When offered a sign, Ahaz replies defiantly: "I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord." (Isaiah 7:12) Yahweh is inviting him to turn back to true worship and is offering to strengthen his faith by performing a sign. However, Ahaz prefers to seek protection elsewhere. It is possibly at this point that the king sends a large sum of money to Assyria, seeking help against his northern enemies. (2 Kings 16:7, 8) Meanwhile, the Syro-Israelite army encircled Jerusalem and the siege was on. With the king's lack of faith on his mind, Isaiah says: "Hear ye now, O house of Daid; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?" (Isaiah 7:13) Yes, Jehovah can get tired of constant defiance. Observe, too, that the prophet now says "my God," not "your God." An ominous change! When Ahaz rejects Jehovah and turns to Assyria, he loses a fine opportunity to restore his relationship with God. Far from telling Ahaz God was with him, Isaiah terrified him with news that disaster was coming at the hands of Assyria. (Isaiah 7:17) Ahaz reasoned that befriending Assyria would relieve him of Israel and Syria, that Assyria's king will respond to Ahaz' plea by eventually attacking Israel and Syria. (2 Kings 16:9) This is likely why Pekah and Rezin will be forced to lift their siege of Jerusalem. Thus, the Syro-Israelite league will have proved unable to take Jerusalem. (Isaiah 7:1) Now, though, Isaiah tells his shocked audience that Assyria, their hoped-for protector, will become their oppressor! The prophet goes on to describe what the Assyrian invasion will do to the land and its people. (Isaiah 7:18, 19) The armies of Egypt and Assyria, like swarms of flies and bees, will have their attention directed to the Promised Land. This will not be a passing invasion. "The flies" and "the bees" will settle down, infesting every nook and cranny of the land. Ahaz hires the Assyrian king to "shave" Syria and Israel. However, this "hired razor" from the Euphrates region will move against Judah's "head" and shave it clean! (Isaiah 7:20) The context of Isaiah 7:14 therefore shows Isaiah was not saying Immanuel would be a sign in their time that God was with Ahaz; he was pointing far into the future, for in his day, God had abandoned Ahaz. Before Jesus reached the age to chose good over bad everything prophesied to happen regarding Assyria had happened, so Jesus still fits the bill fine. My opponent says it was Mahershalalhashbaz referred to as Immanuel, but Isaiah 8:5 says that God was speaking to "me," that is, Isaiah, therefore, the Immanuel of Isaiah 8:8 was the prophet himself. Immanuel was a common name. However, it makes no sense for God to be speaking to a baby in Isaiah 8:8 who can't understand him. There is no statement in Isaiah 8 that the Immanuel prophecy was being fulfilled, that's just Con's opinion. Matthew was discussing the "fulfillment" of the birth, Isaiah wasn't. So the Immanuel of Isaiah 8 isn't the Immanuel of chapter 7. Con denies the early Christian believed in a virgin birth based on 1 Timothy 1:3-4, but this was discussing genealogies, not virgin births. Neither does Paul say here "which" genealogies he means. Con is claiming that because Mark and John didn't mention the virgin birth, that early Christians didn't believe in it, so let me ask, did Mark and John record everything that the early church believed? He presents no proof Mark was written before Matthew. Subscriptions, appearing at the end of Matthew's Gospel in numerous manuscripts say that the account was written about the eighth year after Christ's ascension (c. 41 C.E.). This would not be at variance with internal evidence. The fact that no reference is made to the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy respecting Jerusalem's destruction would point to a time of composition prior to 70 C.E. Around 140 C.E., Bishop Papias of Hierapolis wrote: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15) Mark, though shorter than Matthew in length, is still much too long and varied for its order to have been known to be "improper" through any remembrance of oral tradition. Its order had to be improper relative to some other, written document, which then must have been a gospel that preceded it. Hence Mark could not have been the first gospel written. Around 170/180 C.E., Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, clearly expressed the tradition of the order in which the Gospels were written, and he says Matthew came before Mark. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.1.1) Other church fathers attest to this, so Con's point is again negated.