Undisfellowshipped supplied some commentary from
Albert Barnes' Commentary on Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 7:16. The final conclusion with respect to my argument, bolded below, was:
The child then about to be born would, in most of the circumstances of his birth, be an apt emblem of him who should be born in future times, since both would be a demonstration of the divine power and protection. To both, the name Immanuel, though not the common name by which either would be designated, might be appropriately given. Both would be born of a virgin - the former, of one who was then a virgin, and the birth of whose child could be known only to God - the latter, of one who should be appropriately called "the" virgin, and who should remain so at the time of his birth. This seems to me to be the meaning of this difficult prophecy. The considerations in favor of referring it to the birth of a child in the time of Isaiah, and which should be a pledge to him of the safety of his kingdom "then," seem to me to be unanswerable. And the considerations in favor of an ultimate reference to the Messiah - a reference which becomes in the issue total and absorbing - are equally unanswerable; and if so, then the twofold reference is clear.
SwordofJah supplied some wonderful "meat in due season" from "the faithful and discreet slave". The Watchtower's argument is much like that of Barnes, and likely was borrowed directly from him:
The birth of this child named Immanuel would, of course, not be a virgin birth.
The reasonableness of this is grasped when we see that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 concerning the birth of Immanuel by a maiden was to be a sign for the benefit of King Ahaz to whom the prophet Isaiah was then speaking. The virgin birth of a child seven hundred years later could hardly be a sign to wicked King Ahaz during his lifetime. In Isaiah’s case, therefore, the mother of the son Immanuel would be an ‘al·mah´ or young woman sexually ripe. But the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was given under such solemn circumstances and amid such prophetical developments that prefigured the future that this prophecy of the birth of Immanuel by the ‘al·mah´ must have a fulfillment future from the days of King Ahaz. This is especially so since Isaiah said under inspiration: "Behold, I and the children whom Jehovah hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of hosts, who dwelleth in Mount Zion." (Isaiah 8:18, AS) So this child Immanuel back there in his peculiar birth and meaning of his name would be a wonderful sign of something to occur future. Hence Isaiah 7:14 would have a major, complete fulfillment after Isaiah’s time and at God’s own appointed time.
Readers will note that neither of the above comments actually address the problem that I brought up: You can't have it both ways. Either the birth of the child in Ahaz' day and Jesus' birth were both virgin births, or both were not, because the prophecy uses the word almah (maiden, virgin) to describe the only birth in the prophecy. To claim that in the one case, one should choose "maiden", as both commentaries implicitly do, but in the other we should choose "virgin", is nothing but special pleading -- which is usually a form of false argument. In some cases, special pleading is fine, but one has to present good, solid reasons why the special pleading is a valid argument. Obviously, in the case of "the virgin birth", the only case that can be made is that if the choices are not made as Barnes and the Watchtower do, the Bible is proved to be uninspired. Thus it is a circular argument, and the special pleading is unjustified. Therefore neither Barnes nor the Watchtower have proved their case, or dealt with my proof that the Bible is uninspired.
AlanF
