I considered the pastor may be using a different set of dictionaries when translating Biblical Greek and Hebrew. However, not only has Strong's not been discredited--debate among subtle nuances may be reasonable, of course--but it's highly unlikely that every Biblical word has been translated differently. The pastor's bumbling with these old languages consistently renders "alternate" definitions and derivations every single time.

Dictionaries aside, he's made other claims easily proved false. For example, he made mention that Jesus was the only person in all of history to use a particular Greek grammar: a first-person pronoun followed by a first-person form of "to be" which already implies the pronoun; i.e., the pronoun could be considered redundant. This was his supposed proof that Jesus claimed Godhood repeatedly. He did make such claims, of course, but not with this grammatical quirk. Using the pronoun, though seemingly redundant (only when inappropriately translated into English grammar), merely connotes an emphasis on the first-person pronoun as the subject. No equivalency with the "I AM" is necessarily implied in this grammar. Even more telling is that this form of grammar is used repeatedly throughout the Greek Scriptures and by several individuals other than our Lord. Thus, his claim that Jesus was the only one to use this form is easily disproved by a simple search of the New Testament Greek.

While incompetence does abound in the general population, I do not go seeking it in pulpits. However, the pastor's various claims were extreme and sure enough that I thought it prudent to verify them against Scriptures. When they were easily proved wrong, I was backed into a corner with few conclusions to draw reasonably. The pastor must be either incompetent or maliciously evil--evil often uses 99% truth with 1% lie. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he must be judged incompetent. On the other hand, such consistent failure does smack of malice. After all, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

There is, to my knowledge, no evidence that our Lord ever spoke a word of Greek. The fact that the basis for the New Testament is a large collection of documents written in Greek is no proof of this, as can be seen by examining Matthew 1:20-21:

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

Of course, the angel who was speaking to Joseph did not actually say the word, "Jesus," because that is not the Lord's name. In the Greek texts, the name there reads, "Iesous," but that is also not the Lord's name. The angel said, "ישוע (Jesus)," the Lord's Hebrew name. We know this because of the rest of the sentence: "for He will save His people from their sins." The Hebrew word "ישוע (Jesus)" means "salvation." There is no similar correspondence of meaning for "Iesous" or "Jesus." Clearly, the angel spoke in Hebrew to Joseph; the Greek Scriptures are merely a rendering in Greek of what was said in Hebrew.

As for the pastor's claim that Jesus used a particular Greek grammar, Wayne does not cite a verse where this supposedly occurred, but I suspect that the most likely candidate for this is John 8:58, where Jesus said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." I do not know whether this is the verse that the pastor cited. Regardless, I do not believe that the Lord spoke Greek at this time, because He was standing in the temple addressing a group of Pharisees and other Jews when he said it! It is very unlikely that He, or anyone, would have spoken Greek under these circumstances; Hebrew, or possibly Aramaic, would have been the appropriate language.

Having said all this, I do not want to discount the grammar that is used in the Greek Scriptures. These documents are God-inspired and inerrant, and I have no doubt that this includes the particular grammar that was used, at least in some places. I would expect that this includes the grammar used to render the Lord's words. Furthermore, it is possible that the Lord did speak Greek under some circumstances, most notably when He spoke to non-Jews. The point that I am trying to make is that there is no evidence that Jesus ever spoke Greek, and citing the Greek Scriptures evidence of this is a serious mistake in logic.

The verse was John 15:1.

The same grammatical quirk exists in Hebrew, too, not just Greek. In other words, your argument based upon Jesus' questionable use of Greek is moot.

The quirk is difficult to explain since English has lost much of its heritage, becoming increasingly simplified [grammatically] over the centuries. Many other western languages, though, have this quirk (although they don't consider it a quirk). Think of it like this: "am" is the first-person, singular, present tense form of "to be". It necessarily implies the subject "I". However, English would not generally allow you to omit the "I". The reasons of which I am aware are these: 1. English is Germanic, and German is very structured with less flexibility in sentence structure than Greek and Hebrew (or Latin); 2. most English verbs conjugate very plainly with little to distinguish persons (first-person, second-person, third-person). In these other languages, though, specifying "I" when used with "am" could be considered redundant. However, in Greek and Hebrew anyway (not sure about Latin), specifying the "I" anyway, even when not technically needed, would be a way to emphasize that pronoun. The closest analogy in English I can conceive at the moment is a quotation from Foghorn Leghorn: "I--that is, I--am <doing something cartoonish>..." In this case, it's a personality quirk, almost a stutter, we attribute to the stereotyped character. The meaning is not changed by any means, but the subject of the sentence, "I", is slightly emphasized. The connotation in Greek and Hebrew would be subtle and certainly not critical to understanding the passage, nor would it change the meaning in any doctrinal way.

Regardless of Greek's similarity to Hebrew in this fashion, you're right. Such a fine point should not have been made based upon what is most likely a secondary, translated language (i.e., not original), even if that fine point wasn't a major doctrinal issue.

There is certainly a great deal of richness in understanding the Scriptures in Greek and Hebrew. Excepting vocabulary (for which English is huge), these old languages are much more robust than English with lots of subtle connotations. We miss a great deal in reading Scriptures only in English. However, be very wary of major doctrines hinging upon linguistic subtleties. I won't say they don't happen legitimately, but just be wary, being sure to compare to the whole of Scripture.

I must say that hinging doctrine--especially one as important as Jesus' divinity--upon such a subtle quirk of grammar is really poor form, regardless of the language under debate. Fortunately, John 15:1 is not the key verse for this doctrine, but neither should it be used as such, for the grammar of both Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic, as I understand it) just doesn't warrant it. The pastor was quite wrong for teaching this point, let alone dwelling on it.

First let me clarify: we do not "sit under his teaching". We do not submit to the authority of a pastor when he demonstrates willful contradiction with the Word of God. Nevertheless, it's a good and fair question to ask. To be honest, we attend his church merely because it's the best one around. Over the years, we have attended many churches in this area; believe it or not, the others are worse. We (me, wife, even daughter) tend to be very sensitive to contradictions with the Bible. With the state of today's increasingly apostate church and despite many friendly recommendations, it makes it difficult for us to find good places.

As for the affiliation of our church, I'd rather not answer (anonymity). Suffice it to say, this church's doctrinal beliefs are the closest to Biblical that we can find in this area.

One good thing that comes from our pastor's issues (and testimony to the Lord's ability to use bad things for His purposes), is that my family gets to spend time finding fallacies, studying Greek and Hebrew, dividing Scripture, etc. We will be wiser for it in the long run, even if also more disappointed in the church today.