I have posed this question a couple of times before on the BB and either my post was ignored or the topic was closed before there was a response; its been a little frustrating. I'd like the answer to come from some one that believes strongly that Isaiah 7:14 should be translated as "virgin" in English. Not interpreted as 'virgin', but translated as "virgin". By accepting the translation of "virgin" it effectively indicates that this is the way Isaiah meant for his immediate audience to understand his prophecy. I've never heard any one that believes the Hebrew word heylel should be translated "virgin" admit that there would have been a virginal conception in the time of Isaiah (or conversely, have to admit that Isaiah was a false prophet because a virginal conception didn't happen in the apparent time span predicted). It is reasonable to expect that the event at least had to occur in king Ahaz's lifetime to be considered a sign from the Lord to him. Again, I really doubt any one is going to confess that they think a virginal conception took place in the OT, making Jesus' birth the SECOND such miraculous sign; and I much less expect that some one would claim that Isaiah was false prophet. So, basically the question is: How is the prophecy a true sign to Ahaz at his time in history if he understood Isaiah's speech to mean a supernatural "virgin" birth was to take place, but it didn't happen then? In addition, to answer this question it will require a description of how all the other details of the prophecy apply to Christ, or some other explanation.