The Revised Standard Version indeed says “young woman.” I prefer the translation “virgin.”
As I understand it, the original word meant something closer to “young, marriageable woman,” than how we now define “virgin…” And that, among other things makes it difficult for me to buy into the whole 2k years of overlays which have been applied to the story.
The parallel passage in the New Testament uses the word Virgin, in the Greek.
More specifically, if you are referring to Mat 1:23, the Greek word is “parthenos” which means maiden, or unmarried daugther. Virgin is only implied as are many things doctrinal.
However; if you look in Luke chapter 2 where the angel reveals to Mary what is about to happen to her; that she is going to give birth to the Messiah; Mary’s response leaves no doubt but that she was a virgin in the sense that we understand the word today. “How can this be, since I have known no man?” (Luke 2:34)
And in that society at that time, a “young marriagable woman” would have been a virgin, for no man would have accepted her otherwise. 
Rod
Mat 1:23 is referencing the prophesies of the Old Testament in which it is said a virgin shall give birth.
I think that we give the writers of the canonic (and non-canonic) gospels too little credit as sophisticated and skilled writers. It’s obvious that the Christian communities in the first 4 centuries were equally adept in using both literal and symbolic language to instruct their followers. They must have been perfectly aware of the instructive power of a beautifully told story. Biblical scholars have been using the method of form criticism for quite a while to analyze the bible ( Form criticism says that one cannot decipher the meaning of any religious text unless you know what type of document it represents–is it a letter, a parable, an allegory, an historical account, a sayings gospel, a prophecy?). I must be missing something, but I don’t understand why a literal reading of the bible is somehow truer than the composite view of this (divinely inspired?) collection of accounts, letters, healing stories and parables.
Lewis, in “Myth became Fact”;
“Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. > The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact> . > The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history> . It happens—at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. > We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate> . By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.”
Boy, I agree big time. One of my professors made that argument very strongly. Even Mark, who is often dissed for his rather primitive Greek, probably deserves a lot more credit.
If you got some extra bucks, get;
have fun!
Yes, that’s a little clearer. In fact, this is in keeping with the other saviors of the world, including the myths. It was important that the father be the ultimate God and that the mother be a virgin. This would help prove that the conception was a miracle. Great story! And not to be outdone by competing religions.
An ex-Mormon web site says that Mormons believe God actually made physical love to Mary.
Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary. They believe Jesus is a God, but that any human can also become a god.
There’s a video called Godmakers. Haven’t watched that one yet though.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/detail.cfm?ID=452
An explosive documentary which takes you inside the secret Mormon ceremonies. The pagan nature of these rites and rituals, practiced by an elite few in the Mormon Church, are exposed here for the first time on film.
ok, we’re getting a bit away from the original topic. so here goes;
Just free stuff.
I’ve posted this before, but it’s especially relevant to this discussion.
This is a 20 minute interview with religious historian Elaine Pagels. She talks in some detail about The Gospel of John and its historical context. She also talks in some detail about issues surrounding the concept of Jesus’ virgin birth.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1286543
Best wishes,
Jerry
Playing Devil’s Advocate here, but is there a reason this thread hasn’t been locked and the discussion tranferred to the political…and sometimes religious thread? 
Well, I didn’t lock it because I didn’t find it objectionable and I haven’t heard from anyone who has. I didn’t move it because my moderation powers (or maybe my knowledge) only allows me to move a thread to another forum, not to imbed a thread into another thread.
Thanks,
Dale
Dale: That being said, I have a question. Now that we have a Board dedicated to Off-Topic stuff, well, On-Topic for this board, do you still prefer to have any political and/or religious related stuff remain in the sticky thread, or does it no longer matter?
I have no preference one way or the other, just asking which you want us to do. Thanks!
All the Best, Tom
I’d love to comment, but how do I know that you have correctly remembered the details of whatever it was that you read and tried to regurgitate here? 
Hmm, I think this is the second time you’ve recommend this book. I’m starting to feel compelled to obtain a copy and read it.
Tom
ditto.