Yes. Read the context. Clearly, the initial and intended fulfillment of the prophecy was the normal birth of a child named Immanuel which would signal the downfall of the attacking nations, namely Israel and Aram/Syria. The sign would be in the timing, not in any miraculous pregnancy.So you are arguing about whether Isaiah’s word choice means “virgin” or “young woman” while at the same time taking the position that Isaiah is not even referring to Jesus at all…
That’s because prophecy can have two fulfillments. Matthew is using the witness of the LXX in his quote, hence, we have virgin in Matthew’s Gospel.If the reference in Isaiah does not have any bearing upon Jesus or Mary and a Vigin Birth then are we not left with the testimony of the Gospel writers [and the first Christians] who certainly did believe that the miraculous sign was a “Virgin Birth” …
The Christians saw in Jesus the ultimate fulfillment of the Isaiah prophecy, but that does not require us to read “virgin” in the original Hebrew, because the Hebrew had in mind only a normal birth to be fulfilled within that generation.
I’m posting it this way because the title of the thread refers to the “Palestinian canon” not calling Mary “virgin.” That’s not a fair description because the Palestinian canon has no reference to Mary at all, at least at the literal level.