 There's only one quote in the entire Hebrew Bible that can be quoted in an attempt to demonstrate that the Messiah, or anyone else, would be born of a virgin. And that verse in Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14 reads as follows. Behold, the Alma shall conceive, or was pregnant, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel. Now there are two issues here, and it would be convenient to deal with them separately. This Alma mean virgin, that's number one, and number two, can the son be Jesus? Well with respect to the first question, there is no linguistic reason to translate Alma as virgin. The word has a masculine form, Ellen, which means young man. And there is every reason to believe that the feminine form simply means young woman. Just as an Ellen might or might not have had a sexual experience, so an Alma might or might not be a virgin. In fact, among the half dozen or so times that the word Alma appears in the Hebrew Bible, there is an instance in which it is next to impossible for it to refer to a virgin. Proverbs chapter 30 verse 19 speaks of four ways or paths. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the sea, and the way of a man with an Alma. The common characteristic of these ways is apparently that they leave no trace. Such an interpretation is the only one that fits in well with the following verse which says, quote, such is the way of an adulterous woman. She eats and wipes her mouth and says, I have done no wickedness. Now, since the one form of intercourse which does leave a trace is the way of a man with a virgin, Alma here must mean a non-virgin. It should also be kept in mind that whenever the Bible wants to say virgin in a legal context where precision is necessary, it always uses the word batula, never Alma. Finally, if we were to concede against all the evidence I just presented, that Alma meant virgin, the verse would mean that this virgin would conceive and in the process she would lose her virginity. This is meant quite seriously. Such an interpretation would be a lot more reasonable than the introduction of a radically new doctrine like virgin birth on the basis of this single verse. Now, the second question was, can the son in this verse be Jesus? Isaiah spoke these words to King Ahaz when he was being besieged by two other kings. The prophet wanted to assure him that he needn't worry. And so he told him that this young woman would conceive and have a child and that before the child shall know to refuse evil and Jews good, the land of these two kings shall be forsaken. That's in Isaiah chapter 7 verse 16. That the child is Jesus who was born more than 700 years later is so clearly out of the question that Isaiah chapter 7 verse 14 is really a challenge to the faith of a believing Christian. The question is, how could Matthew have so grievously misinterpreted Isaiah by referring this verse to Jesus? There might be an answer. Perhaps Isaiah was referring to an event of the near future but subtly hinting at a greater event hundreds of years away. This may be fine for someone who is already a believing Christian, but since it concedes that the plain meaning has nothing to do with Jesus, the verse can no longer be used as proof of the virgin birth.