Christmas

Originally posted by RJHinds
The New American Standard Bible gives a more correct translation of
Luke 2:41-42.

Now His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.
And when He became twelve, they went up there according to the custom of
the Feast;

When I became 12 years old it was on my birthday. [...]

Are you sure it's a better translation? The verb "to be" is an interesting and often complex piece of vocabulary throughout the world and throughout history.

Take translating from Indonesian to English for example: the word "menjadi" means to become; to happen; to be born; to be. In some instances it is tricky for translators to choose. If the word "became" in the text you quoted above can also be translated as "was", how can you be sure the New American Standard Bible translation is more correct than the bible Suzianne quoted, which said "And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast"?

Originally posted by FMF
Are you sure it's a better translation? The verb "to be" is an interesting and often complex piece of vocabulary throughout the world and throughout history.

Take translating from Indonesian to English for example: the word "menjadi" means to become; to happen; to be born; to be. In some instances it is tricky for translators to choose. If the word "be en he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast"?

Yes I am absolutely positive. In fact, "he became" is the exact translation,
whereas "he was" is a general translation for he was twelve at the time he
became twelve.

P.S. I am sure because I was surprised to see it translated "he became"
because the KJV which I was brought up using had it as "he was". So I
began my study of the Greek text because of this.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes I am absolutely positive. In fact, "he became" is the exact translation,
whereas "he was" is a general translation for he was twelve at the time he
became twelve.

P.S. I am sure because I was surprised to see it translated "he became"
because the KJV which I was brought up using had it as "he was". So I
began my study of the Greek text because of this.

Yes, but the point is that it can be translated as "became" and it can be translated as "was", as is clear from the work of countless bible scholars, including those who worked on the KJV, among others. "He became" and "he was" are different uses/definitions/translations of the same word. One is not a "general" translation while the other is an "exact" translation: the dividing line between 'happen', 'be, and 'become' is unclear - and therefore open to interpretation - in many languages. Your alleged "surprise" aside, you seem to want to remove nuance from words that clearly have nuances, and a typically tricky case of 'the verb to be' moreover. Appearing to be simply choosing one over the other because it suits what you want to say in this particular instance, is perhaps something you might want to avoid.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes, but the point is that it can be translated as "became" and it can be translated as "was", as is clear from the work of countless bible scholars, including those who worked on the KJV, among others. "He became" and "he was" are different uses/definitions/translations of the same word. One is not a "general" translation while the other is an "exact" translati ...[text shortened]... in this particular instance, is perhaps something you might want to avoid.

Well actually "he was" is wrong, but I was trying to be nice about it since
the idea is close. But apparently you want let me get away with being nice.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well actually "he was" is wrong, but I was trying to be nice about it since
the idea is close. But apparently you want let me get away with being nice.

Well the people who translated the King James Version are bible scholars whose work demonstrates that "he was" is not wrong. Their work on this sentence also makes more sense. The fact that the "idea is close" is the key to this matter. It is, if you want, a way of defining a synonym or multiple definitions of the same word. The fact the New American Standard Bible opts for "became" is not enough evidence, in and of itself, that Jesus had his birthday at the time of the Passover.

Indeed the text explains that Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. That's why they went there, not because he "became" twelve years old. They went up there according to the custom of the Feast, not according to whether it was his twelfth birthday or not. It seems pretty evident that the New American Standard Bible version is rather clumsy, and that the King James Version has most likely got it right.

Originally posted by FMF
Well the people who translated the King James Version are bible scholars whose work demonstrates that "he was" is not wrong. Their work on this sentence also makes more sense. The fact that the "idea is close" is the key to this matter. It is, if you want, a way of defining a synonym or multiple definitions of the same word. The fact the New American Standard Bi ersion is rather clumsy, and that the King James Version has most likely got it right.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I don't know how you got the idea I
was saying that He and his family went to Jerusalem to celebrate His birthday.
I was saying that it just so happened that when they went there this year
to observe the Passover Feast he had just turned 12 years old.

Yes the the King James translators did a very good job on the translation of
the Holy Bible into English but in some cases they allow prejudices to cloud
the way they translated certain thing. For example after the resurrection
they translated the same word they had translated as "Passover" as "Easter".
I believe this was due to their belief that "Easter" had replaced "Passover"
This was corrected in the New King James Version along with replace the
reference to Joshua of the Old Testament which had been translated "Jesus"
with "Joshua". Joshua and Jesus are actually the same name so it caused
some confusion amoung some people as to who was being talked about.

Although most versions follow along with KJV there are other version that also
translate the greek word correctly "he became" such as the NWT of the JWs
and Young's Literal Translation linked below.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%202:42&version=YLT

Originally posted by RJHinds
Although most versions follow along with KJV there are other version that also
translate the greek word correctly "he became" such as the NWT of the JWs
and Young's Literal Translation linked below.

I don't agree with you. I go with the King James Version and, as you concede, "most versions" of the Bible.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't agree with you. I go with the King James Version and, as you concede, "most versions" of the Bible.

Okay.