What question did you ask? Give me it word for word. This influences AI responses. Humans normally get a desired answer by slanting their queries to point AI in a particular direction. Give me your question or questions word for word.Prove you know what you are talking about here. No matter how you look at it, some of Zechariah 14 involves the same era of time as the NT is involving. None of it is meaning before the first coming. Some of us argue that some of it is meaning after the 2nd coming. But that is debatable. It is not debatable that none of it is meaning before the 1st coming, though.
Therefore, point out this other day of the Lord in the NT that is meaning the one in Zechariah 14 but is not meaning the one that comes like a thief in the night. The NT only knows of one day of the Lord not more than one and at different times. And you clearly know it.
On a side note: I decided to give your argument to an AI to analyze before I submit this just to see if you might be correct about Zechariah 14:1 not meaning the day of the Lord, that we take it to mean in the NT. I gave your entire post to the AI to analyze. I had to shorten in this post because it exceeded max chars allowed if I didn't.
---------------------
An AI:
## Short answer
He is right about the *wording* of Zechariah 14:1, but wrong about what the wording *means*. The construction he is relying on — *yôm bāʾ la-YHWH* ("a day is coming for the LORD") — is itself a standard Hebrew way of saying "the day of the LORD." His lexical distinction is an illusion, and ironically, the LXX evidence he cites actually refutes him.
## What he gets right
- The Hebrew reads הִנֵּה־יוֹם בָּא לַיהוָה (*hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*) — "Behold, a day is coming for the LORD."
- The KJV's "the day of the LORD cometh" smooths the word order; NASB/ESV/CSB are more literal. The CSB is the most precise: "a day **belonging to** the LORD is coming."
- Hebrew has no indefinite article, so *yôm* is "a day."
So far, correct. But here the argument collapses.
## The *lamed* is the Day of the LORD
The ל (lamed) prefixed to יהוה is a **lamed of possession/belonging**. Hebrew expresses possession two ways — construct chain (*yôm YHWH*) or with the lamed (*yôm la-YHWH*) — and both are the same technical eschatological term:
- **Isaiah 2:12** — כִּי יוֹם־לַיהוָה צְבָאוֹת, "the day of the LORD of hosts" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Zephaniah 1:7** — כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם־לַיהוָה, "the day of the LORD is near" (*yôm la-YHWH*)
- **Jeremiah 46:10** — וְיוֹם לָאָדוֹן יְהוִה, "that day is a day of the Lord GOD of hosts"
Note the irony: **he himself concedes Isaiah 2:12** — the exact same construction — is the Day of the Lord. That is special pleading.
Even more fatal: **Isaiah 13:9** reads הִנֵּה יוֹם־יְהוָה בָּא (*hinneh yôm-YHWH bāʾ*) — "Behold, the day of the LORD comes" — nearly identical to Zechariah 14:1's *hinneh yôm bāʾ la-YHWH*. The only difference is construct vs. lamed possession, which is semantically nil. (Malachi 3:19 [ET 4:1] likewise uses the "behold, a day is coming" formula for the unambiguous Day of the LORD.) HALOT and BDB both list Zechariah 14:1 under "day of the LORD."
## The LXX evidence backfires
He misquotes the LXX by dropping a word. Ras/Hanhart read:
> ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, **ἡμέρα κυρίου**, καὶ διαμερισθήσεται ἡ ἁλῶσις σού ἐν μέσῳ σού
> "Behold, days are coming — **the day of the Lord** — and your spoil shall be divided in your midst"
The ancient translators doubled the noun: "days are coming, *[that is,]* the **day of the Lord**" — using ἡμέρα κυρίου, the very formula he says is "the normal rendering" of the Day of the LORD. The LXX is a witness *against* his thesis, not for it. He needed to erase ἡμέρα to make his case.
## His statistics are garbled and irrelevant
- The NT distinction he draws is actually between ἡμέρα **κυρίου** (anarthrous: Acts 2:20; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10) and ἡμέρα **τοῦ κυρίου** (genitive article: 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14). There is no reading "hemera ho kurios" — he has mislabeled the genitive article. Article usage in Greek possessives varies stylistically with **zero change in referent**.
- Variation among LXX translators across a dozen books reflects translator habit, not a different "day." Whatever Greek clothing each translator chose, the underlying Hebrew technical idiom is one and the same — and Zechariah 14:1 uses it.
## Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails
The chapter's content rules out the first advent: YHWH coming **with all the holy ones** (14:5 — cf. 1 Thess 3:13), feet on the Mount of Olives (14:4 — cf. Acts 1), living waters from Jerusalem (14:8 — cf. Rev 22:1), "the LORD shall be king over all the earth" (14:9), no more Canaanite in the house of the LORD (14:21 — cf. Rev 21:27). Nothing like this occurred c. AD 30.
And note: the "first advent" application isn't even the mainstream amillennial position. Amillennial scholars (e.g., Hoekema, Baldwin in NICOT) treat Zechariah 14 as the final judgment and consummation in apocalyptic-pictorial language; preterists place it at AD 70. Neither camp needs — or uses — his lexical argument.
## Bottom line
Correct transcription, faulty conclusion. "A day belonging to the LORD is coming" is simply how Hebrew says "the Day of the LORD is coming" — the *lamed* performs the same function as the English "of." The LXX explicitly names it ἡμέρα κυρίου, and his own concession on Isaiah 2:12 (same construction) defeats him. Zechariah 14:1 *does* declare the Day of the LORD, and the distinction he needs to launch his argument does not exist in the text.
Obviously, your question or question has taken AI off on a wild goose chase. It is swatting thin air. I never argued from the Hebrew. I did not need to, because it does not conflict with the Greek text. Hello! There was no need to go there.
Where does statments like the following come from then? What was your input?
- "His statistics are garbled and irrelevant."
- "Even more fatal."
- "Even granting his premise, the conclusion fails."
Last edited:
