The virginal conception and birth of Jesus is a basic Christian belief. Fair enough. However, the idea that the virgin birth was foretold in the book of Isaiah cannot be sustained. There are several problems with this belief.

The Greek word for maiden or virgin had a wider meaning than our word virgin and so is translated as "unmarried" or "bridesmaid" on occasion.
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 simply meant "young woman".
The text in Isaiah 7:14 appears to refer to an account in Isaiah 8:1-4 where the prophet conceived a child with the "prophetess" in the presence of two witnesses.

Isaiah 7:14 could be taken as a prophecy of a birth, but it doesn't appear to be a prophecy of a virgin birth. I believe that something else was going on here, a defense against the charge that Jesus was a bastard.

This was particularly damaging to Jesus because, according to the law of Moses, bastards had to be rejected (Deuteronomy 23:2), just as the descendants of Moabites had to be rejected (Deuteronomy 23:3).

I believe that the writer of Matthew's gospel defended Jesus in a very clever way.

He referred to a story where a prophet conceived a baby in front of witnesses (Isaiah 7:14, 8:1-4).
He mentioned Tamar in Jesus' genealogy (Matthew 1:3). Tamar seduced her father-in-law (Genesis Ch. 38) and would have been killed for breaking the moral code if Judah had not admitted his paternity. Tamar became the mother of Judah's descendants, the Jews.
He then mentioned Rahab, the prostitute who sheltered the Israelite spies in the book of Joshua (Joshua 2:1).
Next is Ruth, a Moabitess, who spent the night in the barn with her future husband before they were married (Ruth Ch. 3). We know they broke the taboos of their time because Boaz insisted that Ruth leave before it was light (Ruth 3:14).
Finally, he mentioned Bathsheba, who committed adultery with David (2 Sam. 11:1-12:15).

We know that Jesus' opponents accused him of being a Samaritan, that is, a half-breed (John 8:48), so Jesus' paternity was a hot topic at that time. It was also a sensitive point with Joseph (Matthew 1:18-19).

I believe that the beginning of Matthew was a defense of Jesus against the charge of being a bastard. How? By saying that if you condemn Jesus for being a bastard you also condemn the descendants of King David, you condemn the descendants of Ruth and Boaz, you condemn the descendants of Rahab the harlot and you condemn the descendants of Judah and Tamar, the Jews.

This is not inconsistent with a belief in the Virgin Birth, because it does not touch Matthew 1:24-25 or Luke 1:34. It explains why the gospel writer referred to a story where a Isaiah conceived a child in front of witnesses and why he specifically referred to four women in Jesus' genealogy who defied the moral conventions. After all, you cannot prove a virgin birth by referring to women who have defied these moral conventions.

I am not asking if people agree with this theory. I am asking if this theory is consistent with Christian doctrines? If it is not, could you explain why?

ISA 7

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

This is a straight-forward scripture. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth. The geneology in Matthew/Luke was to show that BOTH Mary and Joseph were decendants of the Adamic bloodline.

You are doing something called isogesis - reading into the text what's not there.

I am not asking if people agree with this theory. I am asking if this theory is consistent with Christian doctrines? If it is not, could you explain why?

Hi Olddad (love the screen name btw...my first born son was born when I was 49 ;))

To answer your question, no it is not consistent with Christian theology.

The short answer for this is that according to both Jewish and Christian theology, the sin nature (that is the propensity or predisposition to sin) is patrimonial in nature. That is to say it is passed through the lineage of the father.

Obviously, this would present a problem with the "sinless" nature of Christ.

Also, in the advent of Christ we are told that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (Lit. unique, one of a kind, etc.), and that Jesus is in fact the God-man (for lack of a better term).

In John 1:1-3 we read concerning the deity of Christ: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

and in verse14: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

This in and of itself precludes having two human parents, as does the annunciation made to Mary in Luke 1:34-35. After being told Mary would bear messiah she asked: "Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

Gabriel's reply:

"And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God."

There is more of course, but I don't have time to fully go into it right now. The arguments that you presented BTW, have been around since Jesus walked the earth, and can be seen in very early anti-Christian literature written by those who opposed Christ, so they're nothing new.

Hope this helps a bit!

ISA 7

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son...

The trouble with this quote is that it's from a translation. The New Jerusalem Bible translates it: "...the young woman is with child...". The Revised Standard Version says, "a young woman shall conceive". A Jewish translation and the New RSV say, "the young woman is with child". My Jewish father was adamant that the word in Hebrew wasn't virgin, and he could read Hebrew.

Therefore:

* The scripture is not straightforward as you have said.
* I was careful not to attack the doctrine of the virgin birth.
* The idea that the genealogies of Jesus are meant to refer to his descent on both Mary's and Joseph's side cannot be sustained, because both of them trace the descent through Joseph. In other words, Christians are doing something called isogesis - reading into the text what's not there.
* If my interpretation does not stand up, Christians are left with the job of explaining why a text proclaiming a virgin birth would contain a genealogy which draws attention to four women who defied conventional morality.

These are problems that come, not from the text, but from the conventional interpretation of the text. I have interpreted the text in a different way that deals with some, though not all, of the problems.

* If my interpretation is inconsistent with the text or with Christian doctrine, please explain.

One quick aside before I have to run:


The trouble with this quote is that it's from a translation. The New Jerusalem Bible translates it: "...the young woman is with child...". The Revised Standard Version says, "a young woman shall conceive". A Jewish translation and the New RSV say, "the young woman is with child". My Jewish father was adamant that the word in Hebrew wasn't virgin, and he could read Hebrew.

You are correct, however just as in any other language a word may be synonymous with another, it is significant that the Jews of the time never questioned the prophecy of a virgin birth, for indeed they recognized the prophecy as concerning or pertaining to a virgin. They questioned only it's fulfillment in the person of Jesus.

To answer your question, no it is not consistent with Christian theology.

The short answer for this is that according to both Jewish and Christian theology, the sin nature (that is the propensity or predisposition to sin) is patrimonial in nature. That is to say it is passed through the lineage of the father.


Thanks for your reply. Please note that I have not attacked the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. I have tried to deal with the problem inherent in having a genealogy tracing Jesus' ancestors through the male line but mentioning four women, all of whom defied conventional morality. At the same time I have included the problems that are inherent in quoting Isaiah 7:14.

My suggestion is that the five women were included to get back at Jewish critics of Jesus (and also Mary) by turning the criticism back on the Jews. It is not a hostile criticism of Christian doctrine.

I understand that you are not attacking, just questioning...and there is a difference...

Question away, that's what we're here for! :)

(Oh Yeah, I really Do have to run now :lol:)

We know that Jesus' opponents accused him of being a Samaritan, that is, a half-breed (John 8:48), so Jesus' paternity was a hot topic at that time. It was also a sensitive point with Joseph (Matthew 1:18-19).

I believe that the beginning of Matthew was a defense of Jesus against the charge of being a bastard. How? By saying that if you condemn Jesus for being a bastard you also condemn the descendants of King David, you condemn the descendants of Ruth and Boaz, you condemn the descendants of Rahab the harlot and you condemn the descendants of Judah and Tamar, the Jews.
...
I am not asking if people agree with this theory. I am asking if this theory is consistent with Christian doctrines? If it is not, could you explain why?No, the theory is not consistent with Christian doctrines. Your theory, to be true, would require Jesus to be a bastard and thus would require such a defense. But the beginning of Matthew is clearly the statement of the direct paternity of Jesus as being the Holy Ghost and that is absolutely essential to Christian doctrines. Also, the Gospel of Luke leaves no question as to whether Mary conceived as a virgin.

First, looking at the passage in the Gospel of Matthew:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Above, the paternity of Jesus is put forth as the Holy Ghost and not Joseph and not some other man. How is it that "she was found"?

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Joseph contemplates how he is going to dissolve the engagement since Mary is found to be pregnant. The assumption is of course that Mary committed fornication and thus Joseph would not be able to marry her. Joseph was wondering how he would handle the split. However, the angel of the Lord confirms to Joseph that Mary should be married. The reason? Because she was pure and that the paternity of the child she carried was none other than the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

The confirmation of such a possibility is given by the reference to the prophecy in Isaiah. Something was fulfilled. The passage clearly indicates that Jesus' paternity was established to be the Holy Ghost and thus "the sign" and the result of God incarnate, or the divininty of Jesus.

In the Gospel of Luke we have this bewilderment and statement of Mary:

Luke 1:26 And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,

27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
...
30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.

31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
...
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

So we know that Mary was a virgin (v. 34) regardless of how one interprets the meaning of "virgin" in v. 27. I think we can conclude that v. 27 gives us the information needed to understand Mary's objection in verse v. 34.

Also, and most importantly, we are told that God conceived the child and thus Jesus was not merely a man in whom God would later dwell, but rather that God dwelled in Jesus Christ from conception, thus the divinity of Jesus.

God Bless!

My suggestion is that the five women were included to get back at Jewish critics of Jesus (and also Mary) by turning the criticism back on the Jews. It is not a hostile criticism of Christian doctrine.

One thing to remember is that Israelites were to be a 'missionary' society in the sense of standing out from the surrounding Pagan nations, with God as their King; they were to be the vehicle by which God blessed other nations, if only they remained obedient to the covenant. See Isaiah 40-55.

By including Rahab the Canaanite and Ruth the Moabite, Scripture is making the point that no-one is now denied access to God. It prefigures the 'mystery now revealed' in Romans 11: that Jesus by His death and resurrection has opened the way for Gentiles to God as well, not just the Jews. And so God fulfills His promise to Abraham that all nations will be blessed through him - Gen 18:18. We see in Rev 14:6 that God's people are from 'every nation and tribe and tongue and people.'

The trouble with this quote is that it's from a translation. The New Jerusalem Bible translates it: "...the young woman is with child...". The Revised Standard Version says, "a young woman shall conceive". A Jewish translation and the New RSV say, "the young woman is with child". My Jewish father was adamant that the word in Hebrew wasn't virgin, and he could read Hebrew.

Therefore:

* The scripture is not straightforward as you have said.
* I was careful not to attack the doctrine of the virgin birth.
* The idea that the genealogies of Jesus are meant to refer to his descent on both Mary's and Joseph's side cannot be sustained, because both of them trace the descent through Joseph. In other words, Christians are doing something called isogesis - reading into the text what's not there.
* If my interpretation does not stand up, Christians are left with the job of explaining why a text proclaiming a virgin birth would contain a genealogy which draws attention to four women who defied conventional morality.

These are problems that come, not from the text, but from the conventional interpretation of the text. I have interpreted the text in a different way that deals with some, though not all, of the problems.

* If my interpretation is inconsistent with the text or with Christian doctrine, please explain.

You are misinterpreting the scriptures. The KJV is a direct translation of the ORIGINAL text. The RSV is a translations of the KJK. You said "your interpretation". There is a scripture which states "no man is afforded his own personal interpretation of the bible"

Jesus is the Son of God as the prophesies have foretold but by all means, please continue in your quest to disprove this fact. You will be a better person for it.

No, the theory is not consistent with Christian doctrines. Your theory, to be true, would require Jesus to be a bastard and thus would require such a defense.

There are several points to be made in response. I did not speculate on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. In fact, I explicitly stated that my theory is not inconsistent with this doctrine.

It is not a question of whether Jesus was a bastard, but whether he was perceived to be a bastard by those around him. I would say that the quotation from John, where he was called a Samaritan, shows that this charge was thrown at him.

Now I know that Joseph and Mary did get married, but even so, people talk. It's not so long ago that people used to mark calendars after weddings to check if a baby appeared before the customary nine months. I can't imagine that people were any different two thousand years ago. Perhaps this helps explain why Jesus was rejected in Nazareth (Luke 4: 16-30) and why one of the Gospels said the locals referred to him as the son of Mary (Mark 6:3) instead of referring to him as the son of Joseph.

Think for a moment of Mary's situation. She was pregnant before Joseph married her. Even Joseph needed a divine revelation before he accepted that the baby came from God (Matthew 1: 18-20). If he needed a divine revelation, do you think that the same revelation came to the town gossip, the local busybody, the malicious neighbor and so on? People are people, and people gossip. Even though Joseph married Mary, people would still talk, and this talk would have an effect on the reputation of the family.

So, whether Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or not, the gossip would be the same. And that is why the reference to Tamar the seducer, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabite and Bathsheba the adulteress is so relevant. It puts the gossips in their place.

The trouble with this quote is that it's from a translation. The New Jerusalem Bible translates it: "...the young woman is with child...". The Revised Standard Version says, "a young woman shall conceive". A Jewish translation and the New RSV say, "the young woman is with child". My Jewish father was adamant that the word in Hebrew wasn't virgin, and he could read Hebrew.

Therefore:

* The scripture is not straightforward as you have said.
* I was careful not to attack the doctrine of the virgin birth.
* The idea that the genealogies of Jesus are meant to refer to his descent on both Mary's and Joseph's side cannot be sustained, because both of them trace the descent through Joseph. In other words, Christians are doing something called isogesis - reading into the text what's not there.
* If my interpretation does not stand up, Christians are left with the job of explaining why a text proclaiming a virgin birth would contain a genealogy which draws attention to four women who defied conventional morality.

These are problems that come, not from the text, but from the conventional interpretation of the text. I have interpreted the text in a different way that deals with some, though not all, of the problems.

* If my interpretation is inconsistent with the text or with Christian doctrine, please explain.


There is one main problem with your interpretation of Isaiah - the Jews Jesus dealt with spoke Hebrew. He wasn't dealing with Hellenistic Jews that used the Septuagint. Matthew wasn't writing to Jews who had no knowledge of Hebrew. If it were a misapplication, why did it take until the 20th century for anyone to bring it up? Why wasn't it brought up in the 1st century?

I'll deal with your other objections when I get time.

So, whether Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or not, the gossip would be the same. And that is why the reference to Tamar the seducer, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabite and Bathsheba the adulteress is so relevant. It puts the gossips in their place.Well, perhaps then the geneology offers these women as homage to Mary as she was Jesus' only biological parent. As for Jesus, it is His divinity that is established in the Gospels IMO and I believe that is what the Jews found blasphemous and ultimately had Him put to death for.

God Bless!

There are several points to be made in response. I did not speculate on the doctrine of the Virgin Birth. In fact, I explicitly stated that my theory is not inconsistent with this doctrine.

It is not a question of whether Jesus was a bastard, but whether he was perceived to be a bastard by those around him. I would say that the quotation from John, where he was called a Samaritan, shows that this charge was thrown at him.

Now I know that Joseph and Mary did get married, but even so, people talk. It's not so long ago that people used to mark calendars after weddings to check if a baby appeared before the customary nine months. I can't imagine that people were any different two thousand years ago. Perhaps this helps explain why Jesus was rejected in Nazareth (Luke 4: 16-30) and why one of the Gospels said the locals referred to him as the son of Mary (Mark 6:3) instead of referring to him as the son of Joseph.

Think for a moment of Mary's situation. She was pregnant before Joseph married her. Even Joseph needed a divine revelation before he accepted that the baby came from God (Matthew 1: 18-20). If he needed a divine revelation, do you think that the same revelation came to the town gossip, the local busybody, the malicious neighbor and so on? People are people, and people gossip. Even though Joseph married Mary, people would still talk, and this talk would have an effect on the reputation of the family.

So, whether Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit or not, the gossip would be the same. And that is why the reference to Tamar the seducer, Rahab the harlot, Ruth the Moabite and Bathsheba the adulteress is so relevant. It puts the gossips in their place.

Interestingly enough, one of the earliest accusations (dating back to the late 1st or early 2nd century) was that Jesus was the product of the union of Mary and a Roman soldier.

Nothing new under the sun :P

Interestingly enough, one of the earliest accusations (dating back to the late 1st or early 2nd century) was that Jesus was the product of the union of Mary and a Roman soldier.

Nothing new under the sun :P

You are, of course, right. This accusation about Jesus is almost as old as Christianity itself. What I am doing is taking this accusation back to New Testament times and asking how the writer of Matthew's Gospel might have dealt with this issue. When we look at the text we find three things:


The story of the divine conception of Jesus
The assertion that this fulfilled prophecy
A genealogy that traces Joseph back to Abraham


Everyone can accept this. However, there are anomalies that undercut these defences. These are:

Reference to a prediction (Isaiah 7:14) that was followed by the prophet conceiving a child in front of witnesses (Isaiah 8:1-4)
Including in the genealogy the names of four women, something that appears to be quite unprecedented in Biblical literature
including women who defied conventional morality (seduction, prostitution, adultery and a compromising situation in a barn

All of these undercut the idea of a virgin birth because all of them suggest the other way that children can be conceived out of wedlock. It's like saying, "Our female ancestors may have been adulteresses and whores, but this child was conceived by the Holy Spirit!" The obvious response would be "Pull the other leg. It rattles!"

Why would the gospel writer go out of his way to bring up this matter? To undercut his own argument? Not likely!

I think the gospel writer raised it to turn back the accusation of scandal back on the Jews. If you're a Jew, that is, a descendant of Judah, then the chances are you came from an irregular union. If you are related to the Royal House of David, you are the descendant of Rahab the prostitute and Ruth, the Moabite, who spent the night on the threshing floor with her future husband before they married. Finally, if you are from the royal house, it's possible you are the descendant of Bathsheba the adulteress and you certainly are the descendant of David the adulterer. So stop being hypocritical and attacking Mary and her son Jesus.

I have explained the text as a defense of Jesus and Mary. If I am wrong, how else can these extraordinary texts be explained?

Ahhhh....gotcha ;)

I really had not thought of that before...interesting!

I must admit that I have always found it interesting that Rahab, Bathsheeba, etc. were in the lineage of Christ...

Know you've given me something to consider, Kudos!

The virginal conception and birth of Jesus is a basic Christian belief. Fair enough. However, the idea that the virgin birth was foretold in the book of Isaiah cannot be sustained. There are several problems with this belief.

The Greek word for maiden or virgin had a wider meaning than our word virgin and so is translated as "unmarried" or "bridesmaid" on occasion.
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 simply meant "young woman".
The text in Isaiah 7:14 appears to refer to an account in Isaiah 8:1-4 where the prophet conceived a child with the "prophetess" in the presence of two witnesses.
Isaiah 7:14 could be taken as a prophecy of a birth, but it doesn't appear to be a prophecy of a virgin birth. I believe that something else was going on here, a defense against the charge that Jesus was a bastard.

This was particularly damaging to Jesus because, according to the law of Moses, bastards had to be rejected (Deuteronomy 23:2), just as the descendants of Moabites had to be rejected (Deuteronomy 23:3).


I believe that the writer of Matthew's gospel defended Jesus in a very clever way.

He referred to a story where a prophet conceived a baby in front of witnesses (Isaiah 7:14, 8:1-4).
He mentioned Tamar in Jesus' genealogy (Matthew 1:3). Tamar seduced her father-in-law (Genesis Ch. 38) and would have been killed for breaking the moral code if Judah had not admitted his paternity. Tamar became the mother of Judah's descendants, the Jews.
He then mentioned Rahab, the prostitute who sheltered the Israelite spies in the book of Joshua (Joshua 2:1).
Next is Ruth, a Moabitess, who spent the night in the barn with her future husband before they were married (Ruth Ch. 3). We know they broke the taboos of their time because Boaz insisted that Ruth leave before it was light (Ruth 3:14).
Finally, he mentioned Bathsheba, who committed adultery with David (2 Sam. 11:1-12:15).
We know that Jesus' opponents accused him of being a Samaritan, that is, a half-breed (John 8:48), so Jesus' paternity was a hot topic at that time. It was also a sensitive point with Joseph (Matthew 1:18-19).

I believe that the beginning of Matthew was a defense of Jesus against the charge of being a bastard. How? By saying that if you condemn Jesus for being a bastard you also condemn the descendants of King David, you condemn the descendants of Ruth and Boaz, you condemn the descendants of Rahab the harlot and you condemn the descendants of Judah and Tamar, the Jews.

This is not inconsistent with a belief in the Virgin Birth, because it does not touch Matthew 1:24-25 or Luke 1:34. It explains why the gospel writer referred to a story where a Isaiah conceived a child in front of witnesses and why he specifically referred to four women in Jesus' genealogy who defied the moral conventions. After all, you cannot prove a virgin birth by referring to women who have defied these moral conventions.

I am not asking if people agree with this theory. I am asking if this theory is consistent with Christian doctrines? If it is not, could you explain why?


It's very simple. 1st you establish the truth. Jesus is the truth. Jesus was born from the womb of a virgin. Now that the truth is established, you are to use it to measure by. The Masoretic text has a note where the word young maiden could be interchangeable with young virgin, so it should be obvious, because it's not like it hasn't been done before, but don't you think that the jews would have tampered with it? hence more suffering and curses would fall on them, for tampering with the holy scriptures. A bit obvious ey.

The Masoretic text has a note where the word young maiden could be interchangeable with young virgin...
What is your evidence for this statement?

Question: Is it AT ALL possible that the writer of Matthew did not speak Hebrew?

I would assume that any Jewish apostle of Jesus (and any early Christians) would know Hebrew. Surely the early Christians would have checked the Hebrew version of Isaiah to see whether Matthew was pointing to Isaiah as prophecy of a virgin birth. If not, wouldn't they have removed this reference for the sake of maintaining the legitimacy of their virgin birth prophecy claim?

Assuming that the Greek/English were mistranslations of "young woman" as "birth," is it possible that EVERY early Christian happened to miss this? It just seems unlikely that not one early Christian - including the Apostles and their followers - misinterpreted/mistranslated such an important verse...a verse which essentially suggested a prophecy of a virgin birth. More likely, Matthew was pointing at this verse to suggest something else

What is your evidence for this statement?

The Hebrew word "Almah" may be translated either way. for reference I would suggest Girdlestone's "Synonyms of the Old Testament".

In reality though, the entire argument is moot...

Within every language there exists an abundance of synonymous meanings...and ancient Hebrew is no different. Even within regional dialects there will be differences of meaning.

A simple illustration may be found in the word "blue". Depending on the part of the country, it will mean: A color, a style of music, an emotional state, or phase of the Moon. As an American, one will instantly recognize the proper application depending on the usage.

If you live in the UK, "boot" can be either footwear or the trunk of a car. "Bonnet" will be either a woman's hat or the hood of an automobile...

Once again, usage will dictate interpretation. This becomes important when considering the LXX translation (OT in Greek) which was completed (if I remember correctly) 285 years before Christ.

Now these translators didn't "have a dog in the fight" (over 200 years prior to Christ), yet in the septuagint the word "Almah" is translated into the Greek word meaning "virgin".

Now there are three things that jump out to me here: First is that the translators were native speakers of what we would term biblical Hebrew, secondly the Jews held the scriptures to be a Holy thing...to the point that if they made a mistake in transcribing even a "jot or tittle" they'd throw the whole thing away and start over...certainly they would show extreme care in the translation; and thirdly the LXX was accepted by the Jewish community at large for distribution to their Hellenistic brethren (Jews who had "lost" the ability to speak Hebrew).

I simply submit all this for your consideration. :)

Closing this thread as the OP hasn't been here in almost 6 months. If/when he returns, it can be reopened, or a new thread started.