Isaiah 7:14-15 is a sign of Isaiah’s son who would be called “Immanuel,” which he is in Isaiah 8:8, to encourage a king in upcoming battle. Isaiah’s wife was pregnant, and about to give birth when 7:14 is spoken. There was no aim to signify “almah” was a virgin, as Isaiah’s wife is no virgin; had a first child already; and now was pregnant again in 7:14. She is “about to give birth” – hence pregnant by Isaiah. No one in Bible history has ever suggested that her son called “Immanuel” as second name (Isa 8:8) is the product of a virgin birth.

That the early church was concerned of the false claim in a virgin birth based on mistranslating Almah as "virgin" is obviously what explains Eusebius, Church History 6.17 explaining why the Ebionites engaged help form Symmachus. He was a top translator of the Hebrew bible to Greek. He was brought in by Ebionites to help with a mistranslation claim by the Ebionites having taken Hebrew Matthew into Greek. Eusebius says the issue involved the "virgin birth" passage which Eusebius also mentions the Ebionites denied. As the Ebion is the name of the church led by James and 12, and now in early 200s there were successor bishops in place, we need to respect their concern over the virgin birth story. They obviously felt suddenly appeared out of nowhere in a Greek translation of the Hebrew Matthew. See our last video on virgin birth issues.

If Isaiah thus did not mean it was a virgin birth as to his own wife, then it could not be intended as one meaning of a married young woman in Isaiah 7:14 as to his wife, but meant a young virgin woman in Jesus’ case. So a mistranslator changed 7:14 to “virgin,” and off to the races someone wrote a virgin birth account into a Greek translation of Matthew.

Isaiah 7 fulfilled 12-13 years later in 722 BC. Isaiah’s son called Immanuel in 8:8 – and thus was the “sign” for the king. The Curator of the Study of Christianity exclaims his suprise when he first studied Isaiah 7:15 -- the next verse:

“Earth shaking moment for me when I read Isaiah 7:15….Quite evident that this is in no way relating to Jesus which leads us to obvious question whether Matthew correct in his use of Isaiah 7:14.” He advises later we will have a long discusson of Almah and Betula. And we will address whether almah should be “young woman” or “virgin.”

Hence, there is no dual fuflillment possibility to Isaiah 7:14. Matthew – an inspired Matthew did not write Isaiah 7:14.

Isaiah 7 fulfilled 12-13 years later in 722 BC as to “Immanuel” – one of Isaiah’s own sons.

Jonathan Watson, “Immanuel in Isaiah: A Study in Multiple Fulfillment” 2013 in a conservative Christian approach yet admits the following:

“However, Beale, Carson, and Oswalt all suggest that the most likely possibility is Isaiah’s own son, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. For in Isaiah 8:3–4, the prophetess conceives and bears a son, and “before the boy knows how to cry ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria.” …
This same son is called “Immanuel” in 8:8, which is explained in 8:10 as “God with us,” accounting for Matthew’s linking the two portions of Isaiah together. In 8:18 Isaiah describes his two sons, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and Shear-Jashub (cf. 7:3), as “signs and symbols in Israel,” which description ties back in with the sign God promised in 7:11, 14.”

See https://www.logos.com/grow/immanuel-in-isaiah-a-study-in-multiple-fulfillment

Incidentally, the Study of Christianity videos without intending rebut the claims in https://youtu.be/iypSPAS_V9w?t=436 entitled
Tovia Singer refutes Virgin Birth/Dual Prophecy? || Isaiah 7-9 like you've NEVER heard before!

This is a Christian woman trying to rebut Tovia Singer, and she claims that there was no fear in the near future, but only 65 years away. The Study of Christianity video we excerpt clearly shows otherwise, that the young woman's son would be reaching age of 12-13 years when the prophecy would come true. This Christian woman sweeps that aside, ignoring verse 15 of Isaiah 7. She offers no explanation. Ironically, her remark comes right at 7:15 of the time line -- about Isaiah 7:15. God's providence.

She also weaves in the word "Messiah" repeatedly to interpret the passage even though Messiah never mentions Messiah in the text. She insists this is about "messiah king to come," which is nowhere supportable in the text. She claims x y z "proves this is about Messiah, Yeshua," by vague allusions to Psalm 60. See 8:45-9:04.

She then says there is no example of proof of a woman who was a virgin in all 7 examples. She misses that this is Isaiah's wife here who has had a child already who is not a virgin. See 9:40-59.

She is also assuming all the 7 other times are virgins by the word 'almah' rather than proof from the text. This is not how to determine words on the page's meaning.