Hey Muzz...this might take a while, lol.
The fact that people don't accept evidence is hardly brow raising. Who wanted Jesus on the cross the most? The word almah is confusing isn't it? Semetics scholar Dr Dr. Cyrus Gordon, provides additional insight on the matter: The commonly held view that “virgin” is Christian, whereas “young woman” is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes
almah to mean “virgin” here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of
almah as “virgin” for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet. For more...
https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v09-n01/almah-virgin-or-young-maiden/
On Micah... 5:2 “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” The verse clearly speaks of a coming king in Israel, but does it predict the coming of the Messiah?
It makes a couple of predictions. First, the birthplace of this future “ruler of Israel” would be Bethlehem Ephrathah. Since there were two locations known as Bethlehem at the time of Micah’s writing, the addition of Ephrathah is significant. It specifies the Bethlehem in Judah, the portion of Israel in which the capital, Jerusalem, was located. Bethlehem was considered “little,” or insignificant, among the cities of Judah, yet would serve as the birthplace of this future ruler.
Second, the coming ruler of Jewish background was one “whose coming forth is from old, from ancient days.” What else could this refer to other than the Messiah? Only the Messiah fits the description of a ruler in Israel whose origin was from times past. In fact, “from ancient days” is sometimes synonymous with “eternal". Only the Jewish Messiah could be a ruler in Israel from eternity past.
This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the Jewish religious leaders in the first century identified Micah 5:2 as a Messianic prophecy. In Mathew 2 wise men from the East visited King Herod in Jerusalem and asked where the king of the Jews had been born. Herod assembled all the chief priests and scribes, and “he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea,’” basing their answer on Micah 5:2
Only Jesus Christ fits the Messianic claims of Micah. He was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the ruler of Israel. He also fits the description as being “from ancient times” or eternal. No other ruler in Israel fits these requirements. Dozens of other direct prophecies in the Old Testament (some scholars cite hundreds) fit Jesus’ birth, ministry, and death.
Jesus told the Jews that the Law and the Prophets provided a clear witness that He was who He claimed to be. “These are the Scriptures that testify about me,” He said. Still today, those who investigate the prophecy of Micah and other Messianic passages find compelling evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.
The Daniel prophecy 2:31-33... You, O king, saw, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before you; and the form thereof was terrible. This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.
Daniel told Nebuchadnezzar that his Babylonian Empire was represented by the head of gold.
This interpretation provided an astounding preview of history. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream occurred and was interpreted by Daniel about 600 B.C. The image represented, in symbolic form, the sequence of great empires that would dominate the region’s political scene for centuries.
The silver empire was to be Medo-Persia, which began with Cyrus the Great, who conquered Babylon in 539 … This silver empire was supreme in the Near and Middle East for about two centuries.
The bronze empire was the Greco-Macedonian Empire established by Alexander the Great … The bronze kingdom lasted for about 260 or 300 years before it was supplanted by the fourth kingdom.
Iron connotes toughness and ruthlessness and describes the Roman Empire that reached its widest extent under the reign of Trajan. Trajan reigned as emperor A.D. 98-117, and the Roman Empire itself ruled for many centuries. The fourth empire was depicted as having 10 toes. The feet and toes were composed partly of iron and partly of clay, as verse 41 explains. Verse 41 deals with a later phase or outgrowth of this fourth empire, symbolized by the feet and ten toes—made up of iron and earthenware, a fragile base for the huge monument. The text clearly implies that this final phase will be marked by some sort of federation rather than by a powerful single realm.
The 4 generals that initially inherited Alexander the greats empire were Ptolemy, Antipater, Seleucus and Antigonus. (I'm pretty sure lol) With the death of Alexander the army was no longer under central control and these generals quickly began to fight civil wars to gain more control of the spoils. The empire fell astonishingly quickly after that. As far as dominating empires go...who was left? It's not about conquering.
Of course...those that don't believe will always dismiss things they don't want to see.
