I'm more of a fan of A Christmas Story as told by Jean Shepherd.

Mujus, do you believe in the virgin birth or is that a mistranslation of another word for young woman? Why does this story not appear in Mark?

@ Putin: Question: "Is 'virgin' or 'young woman' the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?"

Answer: Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html#ixzz2oKIQtP2X

I'm more of a fan of A Christmas Carol as told by Charles Dickens.

But really, Mujus, you have your verse a day thread I have muted. Couldn't you have kept Christmas in your own way and let the rest of us keep it in ours?

Keeping Christmas is Mujas' way clearly involves spreading the good news to others. To be honest, as much as i find the daily bible thread a little tedious, I see no harm in a Christmas story at Christmas time.

Dickens' version is more canon than the Biblical version, IMO. In any case, since Christmas is a special occasion, I don't see the harm in another Bible thread. Happy holidays, Mujus :)

There are other Hebrew words that unambiguously mean virgin (betula), so it is curious that almah got the translation that it did in Greek, at least in this instance. Elsewhere it is translated as maiden (Proverbs 30:19).

Octavious, thank you. Interesting that Bible-related threads come under more criticism than almost anything else--and the move to restrict only this one topic to only one thread reflects the movement in society at large to restrict religious expression in public.

Putin, the word "maiden" seems to imply virginity, much like the original Hebrew. But the choice of "parthenos," unambiguously meaning "virgin," was made over 200 years before Jesus was born, of Mary, and so the word virgin is certainly a valid translation, and really the most probable one.

And sayetg the wise man

YOU'LL SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT!

Mujus, I've heard several rabbis claim that you are wrong and that in context the Hebrew word does not imply virginity it implies a young girl... Do you know Hebrew better than them

I have no desire to argue with you this thread but I figured I'd call out that untrue statement.

That's a stretch. There are several instances of almah and only in Isaiah do we find parthenos as the translation. Elsewhere it is rendered as neanis - young, unmarried woman/maiden - Exodus 2:8; Psalms 68:26; Song of Songs 1:3; 6:8. Furthermore there is a male variant of almah - elam, and this makes no implication of virginity.

So there is significant reason to doubt the probability as a valid translation.

Anyway I am curious as to your take as to why Mark did not pick up on the virgin birth story. That seems like a large detail to miss.

"Mujus, I've heard several rabbis claim that you are wrong and that in context the Hebrew word does not imply virginity it implies a young girl... Do you know Hebrew better than them"

Well, do they know (ancient) Hebrew better than the translators of the Septuagint, SC?

(Yes, I'm aware the Septuagint has some near-certain errors; but it still takes some moxy to simply write off the ancients' translation of their own word completely).

I think Mujus's "maiden" point is a reasonable one. On coming upon the English word "maiden" in a book a few centuries old, one would most likely translate it "young woman," but in a passage related to childbearing specifically, it would be most striking and one might translate it virgin. This is despite the fact that there was a clearer word (virgin) in use in middle English as well.

Except that AFTER Joseph's sister Dinah is raped she is referred to in the Septuagint as a Parthenos. She is obviously not a virgin after she is raped.

There is a word for virgin and it wasn't used

Go fish.

So? Rape is an odd case, isn't it? I could easily see the English "maiden" still being used in such a scenario, though I could also see it not being used, and I don't claim to know how middle English writers would have handled the case. The bigger point, once again, is really that I think a reasonable amount of deference is due the LXX translators on this point, given the cultural niceties involved.

A final point would be that God would be perfectly able to provide for a virgin birth irrespective of whether there was a prophecy about it at all, and He would also be able to do so and point to a highly nonobvious meaning of a prophecy. This is obviously the case anyway with several other prophecies that the NT points to Christ fulfilling.

But when translatong something prophetic you may misinterpret it to mean something more, em, unusual, because it is more specific and thus holds more predictive power (or adds meaning/value to the prophecy...) so it is possible that this was a mistaken translation; or infact that this was the original intent of the prophecy (for the same reasons i've just suggested)

But largely trivial today. Yes, they meant something, that misses the question of whether you believe in a virgin birth. (though perhaps that is a personal issue and you're entitled to pass on that question)

I do not believe; i might even deny the divinity of jesus, and claim that we are all 'children of god' in the we descend from adam and he was made by god (god not being human, i don't know if children is the right word at all, but progenitor sounds a little sci-fi...)

Also, while i +1'd this comment: " To be honest, as much as i find the daily bible thread a little tedious, I see no harm in a Christmas story at Christmas time." - that just shows the pro-christian bias within our society. Not that i'm disagreeing, i am acknowledging the pro-christian bias in our culture.

No semck, it is not. If you actually read the old testimony, rape victims were not only not virgins any longer, they were compelled to Mary the rapist because sex and marriage was one in the same in Hebrew law. If I had to guess, that is the source of our confusion over the rule.

A woman who was raped in the Old Testament was often unable to marry because of the fact she lost her virginity. It was such a problem that the male who raped her was sentenced to marry her in order so that she could marry.

Terrible stuff indeed

But what it shows quite clearly is that there was no compassionate gray area in referring to a rape victim as a virging, the victim was not.

Yet the Greek translation uses the same word to describe the victim.

As I said go fish.

If you want an answer (which you don't) read the Jewish scholar below.

A Christian Defends Matthew by Insisting That the Author of the First Gospel Relied on the Septuagint When He Quoted Isaiah to Support the Virgin Birth
Question:

Rav Singer,

Why did you say Christians mistranslate the Scripture by saying “almah” doesn’t mean “virgin,” when their translation of virgin comes from the Septuagint’s “parthenos,” not the Hebrew “almah”? “Parthenos” does mean “virgin.”

They didn’t mistranslate but used a different text. This is pretty well known. Did you not know? I don’t think this is a very good thing to have on your page.

Answer:

Your inquiry will undoubtedly make an enormous contribution to this work. Your question contains some of the most commonly held misconceptions regarding Matthew’s rendering the Hebrew word alma as virgin in Matthew 1:23. Highlighting your question will, no doubt, benefit countless others who are confused by the same mistaken presuppositions imbedded in your question.

Your assertion that Matthew quoted from the Septuagint is the most repeated argument missionaries use in their attempt to explain away Matthew’s stunning mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma. This well-worn response, however, raises far more problems than it answers.

Your contention that “parthenos does mean virgin” is incorrect. The Greek word Παρθένου (parthenos) can mean either a young woman or a virgin. Therrefore, Παρθένου can be found in the Septuagint to describe a woman who is clearly not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, “his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (Sept. parthenos) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (Sept. parthenos).” Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos, the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.

Moreover, the Septuagint in our hands is not a Jewish document, but rather a Christian recension. The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah, from which you asserted Matthew quoted. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.

Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) edited and shaped the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout its history as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.

The ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint, confirms that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.2

Therefore, St. Jerome, a Church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of the Septuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.3 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat. septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”4

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, a preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes,

The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.5
Regarding your assertion that Matthew was quoting from the Septuagint, nowhere in the Book of Matthew does the word Septuagint appear, or, for that matter, is there any reference to a Greek translation of the Bible ever mentioned in all of the New Testament; and there is good reason for this silence. The first century Church was well aware that a Jewish audience would be thoroughly unimpressed by a claim that Jesus’ virgin birth could only be supported by a Greek translation of the Bible. They understood that if Jews were to find their Christian message convincing, they had to assert that the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah clearly foretold Mary’s virgin conception. Matthew could not suggest that only a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures supported his claim. Therefore, in Matthew 1:22-23, the author of the first Gospel insists that it was “spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, ‘Behold, a virgin shall be with child...’” Matthew loudly makes the point that it was specifically the prophet’s own words that proclaimed the virgin birth, not the words of any translator.

Isaiah, of course, did not preach or write in Greek, and therefore throughout his life the word parthenos never emerged from the lips of the prophet. All sixty-six chapters of the Book of Isaiah were spoken and then recorded in the Hebrew language. Matthew, however, claimed that Isaiah – not a translator – declared that the messiah would be born of a virgin. No such prophecy was ever uttered by the prophet.

Furthermore, this contention becomes even more preposterous when we consider that the same missionaries who attempt toexplain away Matthew’s mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma by claiming that Matthew used a Septuagint when he quoted Isaiah 7:14 also steadfastly maintain that the entire first Gospel was divinely inspired. That is to say, these same Christian missionaries insist that every word of the New Testament, Matthew included, was authored through the Holy Spirit and is therefore the living word of God. Are these evangelical apologists therefore claiming that God had to rely on a Greek translation of the Bible? Are they suggesting that God quoted from the Septuagint? Did the passing of five centuries since His last book cause God to forget how to read Hebrew that He would need to rely on a translation? Why would God need to quote from the Septuagint?

Although Matthew’s mistranslation of the Hebrew word alma was recklessly crafted, it was deliberate endeavor. It was not the result of a clumsy decision to quote from a corrupt Greek translation of the Bible. The most casual reader of the seventh chapter of Isaiah recognizes that Isaiah 7:14 is not discussing the birth of a messiah at all.6

The Christian editors of the Septuagint retrofitted and shaped this Greek recension so that it would comport with Matthew’s mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14; not the other way around.

The prophet’s original intent regarding the young woman in Isaiah 7:14 was unimportant to the author of the first Gospel. Matthew was driven only by his fervid desire to somehow prove to his readers that the virgin birth was prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures. Bear in mind that the author of the first Gospel — more than any other writer in the New Testament — deliberately shaped and contoured his treatise to promote Christianity among the Jews. In essence, Matthew was writing with a Jewish audience in mind. He understood that in order to convince the Jewish people to embrace Jesus as their messiah, it was essential to demonstrate his claim of the virgin birth from the Jewish Scriptures. Luke, in contrast, was writing for a non-Jewish, Greek audience and therefore makes no attempt to support his version of the virgin birth from the Hebrew Bible.

In his attempt to promote numerous Christian creeds amongst the Jews, Matthew was faced with a serious quandary. How would he prove that Jesus was the messiah from the Jewish Scriptures when there is no relationship between the Jesus of Nazareth of the New Testament and the messianic prophecies of the Jewish Scriptures? How was he going to merge newly inculcated pagan myths, such as the virgin birth, into Christianity with a Hebrew Bible in which a belief in a virgin birth was unknown?

In order to accomplish this daunting task, verses in the Hebrew Scriptures were altered, misquoted, taken out of context, and mistranslated by the author of the Book of Matthew in order to make Jesus’ life fit traditional Jewish messianic parameters, and to make traditional Jewish messianic parameters fit the life of Jesus. In essence, he felt compelled to claim that the Hebrew prophets themselves foretold that Jesus was the messiah. It is therefore no coincidence that, with the exception of Paul, no writer of the New Testament mistranslated the Jewish Scriptures to the extent that Matthew does throughout his Gospel. Paul’s famed misquotations from the Jewish Scriptures, on the other hand, went largely unnoticed because his audiences were, for the most part, unlettered gentiles.

Ironically, the widespread Bible tampering found in the first Gospel was sparked by Matthew’s desire to convince Jews that Jesus was their promised messiah. Yet strangely, if the Book of Matthew had never been written, the Church, no doubt, would have been far more successful in its effort to evangelize the Jews. In essence, had promoters of Christianity avoided the wild Scripture tampering that clutters almost every chapter in the Book of Matthew, the Church might have enjoyed far more success among the Jews as did previous religions that targeted the Jewish people for conversion.

For example, the priests of Baal did not attempt to bolster the validity of their idol worship by misquoting the texts of the Hebrew Bible, as Matthew did. As a result, the Bible reports that the idol Baal gained enormous popularity among the Jewish people. In contrast, once the nation of Israel was confronted with a corruption of their sacred Scriptures by authors and apologists of the New Testament, their apostasy to Christianity for the most part became untenable. Therefore, throughout history the Jewish people remained the most difficult nation for the Church to sway. Consequently, whereas the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John enjoyed overwhelming success among their gentile audiences, the Gospel of Matthew played an enormous role in the ultimate failure of the Church to effectively convert the Jews to Christianity, at least the knowledgeable ones.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

1. Jerome repeats this statement in his Apology Against Rufinus ii, 27 (Migne, P.L. 23, 471).

2. Josephus, preface to Antiquities of the Jews, section 3. For Josephus’ detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4.

3. St. Jerome, preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Volume 6. Pg. 487. Hendrickson.

4. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Excerpt from “Septuagint,” New York: Vol. 5, pg. 1093.

5. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, p.150.

6. The seventh chapter of the Book of Isaiah begins by describing the unfolding Syro-Ephraimite War, a military crisis that was confronting King Ahaz of the Kingdom Judah. In about the year 732 B.C.E. the House of David was facing imminent destruction at the hands of two warring kingdoms: the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Syrian Kingdom. These two armies had laid siege to Jerusalem. The Bible relates that the House of David and King Ahaz were gripped with fear. In response these two warring armies, God sent the prophet Isaiah to reassure King Ahaz that divine protection was at hand — the Almighty would protect him, their deliverance was assured, and these two hostile armies would fail in their attempt to subjugate Jerusalem.

It is clear from this chapter that Isaiah’s declaration was a prophecy of the unsuccessful siege of Jerusalem by the two armies of the Kingdoms of Israel and Syria, not a virgin birth more than 700 years later. If we interpret this chapter as referring to Jesus’ birth, what possible comfort and assurance would Ahaz, who was surrounded by two overwhelming military forces, have found in the birth of a child seven centuries later? Both he and his people would be long dead and buried. Such a sign would make little sense.

(c) Tovia Singer 2011

Today's Christmas Reading, Number 2 of 3, is Luke 1:26-2:20. New Living Translation (NLT)

The Birth of Jesus Foretold

1:26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, 27 to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. 28 Gabriel appeared to her and said, “Greetings, favored woman! The Lord is with you![a]”

29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 “Don’t be afraid, Mary,” the angel told her, “for you have found favor with God! 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel[b] forever; his Kingdom will never end!”

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God. 36 What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren, but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.[c]”

38 Mary responded, “I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” And then the angel left her.

Mary Visits Elizabeth

39 A few days later Mary hurried to the hill country of Judea, to the town 40 where Zechariah lived. She entered the house and greeted Elizabeth. 41 At the sound of Mary’s greeting, Elizabeth’s child leaped within her, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

42 Elizabeth gave a glad cry and exclaimed to Mary, “God has blessed you above all women, and your child is blessed. 43 Why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should visit me? 44 When I heard your greeting, the baby in my womb jumped for joy. 45 You are blessed because you believed that the Lord would do what he said.”

The Magnificat: Mary’s Song of Praise

46 Mary responded,

“Oh, how my soul praises the Lord.
47 How my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!
48 For he took notice of his lowly servant girl,
and from now on all generations will call me blessed.
49 For the Mighty One is holy,
and he has done great things for me.
50 He shows mercy from generation to generation
to all who fear him.
51 His mighty arm has done tremendous things!
He has scattered the proud and haughty ones.
52 He has brought down princes from their thrones
and exalted the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
and sent the rich away with empty hands.
54 He has helped his servant Israel
and remembered to be merciful.
55 For he made this promise to our ancestors,
to Abraham and his children forever.”
56 Mary stayed with Elizabeth about three months and then went back to her own home.

The Birth of John the Baptist

57 When it was time for Elizabeth’s baby to be born, she gave birth to a son. 58 And when her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had been very merciful to her, everyone rejoiced with her.

59 When the baby was eight days old, they all came for the circumcision ceremony. They wanted to name him Zechariah, after his father. 60 But Elizabeth said, “No! His name is John!”

61 “What?” they exclaimed. “There is no one in all your family by that name.” 62 So they used gestures to ask the baby’s father what he wanted to name him. 63 He motioned for a writing tablet, and to everyone’s surprise he wrote, “His name is John.” 64 Instantly Zechariah could speak again, and he began praising God.

65 Awe fell upon the whole neighborhood, and the news of what had happened spread throughout the Judean hills. 66 Everyone who heard about it reflected on these events and asked, “What will this child turn out to be?” For the hand of the Lord was surely upon him in a special way.

Zechariah’s Prophecy

67 Then his father, Zechariah, was filled with the Holy Spirit and gave this prophecy:

68 “Praise the Lord, the God of Israel,
because he has visited and redeemed his people.
69 He has sent us a mighty Savior[d]
from the royal line of his servant David,
70 just as he promised
through his holy prophets long ago.
71 Now we will be saved from our enemies
and from all who hate us.
72 He has been merciful to our ancestors
by remembering his sacred covenant—
73 the covenant he swore with an oath
to our ancestor Abraham.
74 We have been rescued from our enemies
so we can serve God without fear,
75 in holiness and righteousness
for as long as we live.
76 “And you, my little son,
will be called the prophet of the Most High,
because you will prepare the way for the Lord.
77 You will tell his people how to find salvation
through forgiveness of their sins.
78 Because of God’s tender mercy,
the morning light from heaven is about to break upon us,[e]
79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,
and to guide us to the path of peace.”
80 John grew up and became strong in spirit. And he lived in the wilderness until he began his public ministry to Israel.

The Birth of Jesus

2:1 At that time the Roman emperor, Augustus, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the Roman Empire. 2 (This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 All returned to their own ancestral towns to register for this census. 4 And because Joseph was a descendant of King David, he had to go to Bethlehem in Judea, David’s ancient home. He traveled there from the village of Nazareth in Galilee. 5 He took with him Mary, his fiancée, who was now obviously pregnant.

6 And while they were there, the time came for her baby to be born. 7 She gave birth to her first child, a son. She wrapped him snugly in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no lodging available for them.

The Shepherds and Angels

8 That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. 9 Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, 10 but the angel reassured them. “Don’t be afraid!” he said. “I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. 11 The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! 12 And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.”

13 Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying,

14 “Glory to God in highest heaven,
and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.”
15 When the angels had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to each other, “Let’s go to Bethlehem! Let’s see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”

16 They hurried to the village and found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger. 17 After seeing him, the shepherds told everyone what had happened and what the angel had said to them about this child. 18 All who heard the shepherds’ story were astonished, 19 but Mary kept all these things in her heart and thought about them often. 20 The shepherds went back to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen. It was just as the angel had told them.

Footnotes:

a. 1:28 Some manuscripts add Blessed are you among women.
b. 1:33 Greek over the house of Jacob.
c. 1:37 Some manuscripts read For the word of God will never fail.
d. 1:69 Greek has raised up a horn of salvation for us.
e. 1:78 Or the Morning Light from Heaven is about to visit us.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%201:26-Luke%202:20&version=NLT

Just because most "almah" were actual virgins doesn't mean all "almah" were. Even if 99% were virgins that doesn't make it "likely" that Mary was a virgin exactly *because* of the fantastic claim that surrounds her pregnancy. Occam's Razor applies here: the simplest explanation is that Mary was one of the minority of "almah" who were not virgins, not impregnated by some supernatural being.

All this is assuming that the non-supernatural parts of the story are even accurately portrayed.

Numbat, Mary actually says that she is a virgin in Luke 1, verse 34: 34 εἶπε δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον· πῶς ἔσται μοι τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;
Literal translation of the relevant phrase: "since I have not known a man?"

"When one returns to the Greek, it is like going into a garden of lilies out of some narrow and dark house." - Oscar Wilde

Santa, thank you for posting that rebuttal. The reading you posted brought up several interesting points. Note first that I said "virgin" was a valid translation of the Hebrew "almah," but I did not exclude "maiden" or "young woman" as also being valid translations. And while I don't have time to research every point you bring up, the point that this is the only time "Almah" is translated as "parthenos," which I don't know but will take your word for, just points to the special nature of this particular prophecy. As for this prophecy referring to something else entirely, that's the nature of prophecy. As Semck pointed out, there are layers of prophecy and they are not always obvious at the time.

Putin, what is your point? That John and Mark don't mention the virgin birth, so Jesus wasn't born of a virgin? They also don't say anything about him being born at all, so using the same logic, he was never born (even though all four gospels agree that he lived)? I'm not sure I get the point.

The point is that the earliest sources - Mark and also Paul make no mention of this magnificent event which seems to be central to the claims of Jesus's alleged divinity.

@Mujus: Lots of people say things that aren't true. Just look at this forum, not to mention this game! :) Occam's Razor applies just as well to Mary herself making the claim. When compared with the incredible claim of a supernatural impregnation, a much more simple reason (among others) as to why she would have said such a thing is that she was raped or had a pre-marriage sexual relationship. It happens all the time and people often try cover such things up. This is a much simpler explanation than divine intervention.