Let me say up front that I am not a Greek language scholar and this verse was originally written in that language. According to some Greek scholars however, a very strong case can be made that the verse should have been rendered:
I am quite familiar with Greek, and you are correct that the rendering could
have been translated that way. It wasn't though. Never in Greek, Latin, German, English.........well, you get the picture. It is a stretch to say that it should have been. Don't get me wrong, the Bible is replete with mistranslated passages and later additions that were not in the earliest and best manuscripts.
You can disappoint the "snake handlers" by pointing out that Mark 16:9-18 are missing from the earliest and best manuscripts. Sorry guys!
You can shoot down the Catholics by showing that the earliest and best manuscripts do not contain 1 John 5:7, otherwise known as the "Comma Johanneum" ("For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.") This is an obvious later edition and has been proven to be so.
The reason for the incredibly creative ways in which the authors place the family in Bethlehem for the birth even though they lived in Nazareth is simple. They both wanted to make it appear that an OT prophecy concerning the Messiah could be connected with Jesus. They both do it in very different ways though, and both stories cannot be relegated with one another. It is impossible for them to have been where they say they were and when. Mathew and Luke both used Mark (the oldest) as a source among other sources in common. Mark is not concerned with the birth narrative because it had not been developed yet. It wasn’t part of his message or beliefs.