Log in

or use your email

Search the Library

Keyword search across Doctrine Analysis, Core Glossary, Comparative Theology, and Regional Analysis. Mention a language name for the best results — e.g. "remnant burmese" or "what glossary terms conflict for burmese."

Type at least 2 characters to search.

Work with us

Tell us a bit about how you'd like to work with tri-bible.ai.

Stay informed Get our weekly newsletter. Never sold or shared, unsubscribe anytime.

Let us serve you Church leaders and ministry networks seeking translated curriculum Join our team Volunteers interested in reviewing translations
Download Translation Skill

Linguistic Gap Analysis

Linguistic Gap Analysis: Amos

0. Scope and Method

Amos is a short, densely poetic eighth-century B.C. prophetic book built around five recurring structural units: oracles against the nations (1:1-2:16), covenant lawsuit/exhortation cycles (3:1-6:14), five visions (7:1-9:10), and a closing restoration oracle (9:11-15). The core passage for this curriculum, 5:18-24, sits at the rhetorical center of the book (the “Day of the LORD” oracle and the ritual-rejection oracle immediately following it), but the five curriculum doctrines draw on material from every chapter. This analysis therefore proceeds chapter-by-chapter first (Section 1), then synthesizes findings into the four required deliverables: a doctrine vocabulary matrix (Section 2), a missing-vocabulary/crowded-neighborhood map (Section 3), a transliteration-vs-paraphrase decision table (Section 4), and a ranked ambiguity list (Section 5).


1. Chapter-by-Chapter Coverage

Ch.Load-bearing content for this curriculumNew/flagged Arabic-vocabulary issuesStatus
1Superscription; oracles against Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon (1:1-15)يزأر (roar); معاصٍ/تعدّيات (transgression, applied to Gentile nations without Torah — grounds “Sovereignty over All Nations”); النار (fire-judgment, historical not eschatological); عهد الإخوة (covenant of brotherhood, Tyre 1:9)Reviewed — feeds Sovereignty doctrine
2Oracles against Moab, Judah (Torah rejection), Israel (2:6-16): sale of the poor, Nazirite corruption, prophetic silencingالناموس (baseline reuse); الناذر/المكرَّس لله (Nazirite — fenced against النذير); الفقراء/المساكين/المظلومون (poor/needy, first major occurrence — grounds Social Justice doctrine)Reviewed — feeds Social Justice + Sovereignty doctrines
3”You only have I known” (3:2); lion-roar causality; God’s سرّ disclosed to prophets (3:7); Bethel/Gilgal altars threatenedعرفتُ / اخترتُ (yada — election, CRITICAL); سرّه (secret/counsel — Sufi asrar fencing)Reviewed — feeds Sovereignty + Empty Ritual doctrines
4Cows of Bashan; sarcastic sacrifice/tithe command (4:4-5); five ignored disciplines refrain “yet you did not return to me”; “Prepare to meet your God” (4:12); LORD of hosts (4:13)العُشور (tithe); يرجع/يتوب (shuv, fenced against tawbah); استعدّ للقاء إلهك (prepare to meet God, fenced against liqā’ Allāh piety); رب الجنود (LORD of hosts, fenced against militarized/nationalist reading)Reviewed — feeds Empty Ritual + Day of the LORD doctrines
5Funeral dirge (5:1-2); “seek the LORD” vs. shrine-sites (5:4-6,14); gate-justice, bribery, wormwood (5:7-15); CORE PASSAGE 5:18-24: Woe, Day of the LORD, darkness/light reversal, “I hate, I despise,” feasts/offerings/songs rejected, “let justice roll down like waters”مرثاة; اطلبوا/التمسوا الرب; باب المدينة; الرشوة; العلقم; الويل; يوم الرب (CRITICAL); ظلام/لا نور; أُبغِض…أرفض (High); أعيادكم/محافلكم؛ المحرقات/التقدمة/ذبائح السلامة (High, shelamim/السلام collision); ضجيج أغانيكم؛ العدل (High); البر (CRITICAL, baseline reuse + added context); نهر دائم الجريانReviewed — the doctrinal anchor chapter; feeds all five curriculum doctrines directly except Messianic Hope
6Complacent luxury of Samaria’s elite (6:1-7); national ruin (“ruin of Joseph,” 6:6); God’s oath of coming exile (6:8-14)الغافلون (those at ease, fenced against al-nafs al-muṭma’innah); انهيار (ruin)Reviewed — feeds Day of the LORD doctrine (false security theme)
7Vision 1 (locusts) and 2 (fire): God relents; Vision 3 (plumb line); Amaziah confrontation: seer vs. prophet, king’s sanctuary, Amos’s callingالجراد; فرقّ الرب/فندم الرب (nicham — tanzih fencing); خيط الشاقول (plumb line, High — deliberately NOT ميزان); رائٍ/الناظر vs. نبي; مقدس الملك; الدعوة (baseline reuse — prophetic calling)Reviewed — feeds Day of the LORD (measurement/standard imagery) and Sovereignty (prophetic authority) doctrines
8Vision 4 (summer fruit/end wordplay); renewed indictment of merchants defrauding the poor with false balances; Day-of-the-LORD darkness at noon (8:9-10); famine of hearing God’s word (8:11-14)ثمر الصيف/النهاية (untranslatable pun, needs translator’s note); موازين الغش (High, ميزان collision fenced with الغش); مجاعة لسماع كلام الرب (High, tahrif-caution cross-reference)Reviewed — feeds Social Justice + Day of the LORD doctrines
9Vision 5 (altar/temple collapse); “Are you not like the Cushites to me?” (9:7); inescapability of judgment (9:1-10); closing oracle: fallen tent of David raised, remnant of Edom and nations called by God’s name, restored/unshakeable fortunes (9:11-15)الكوشيون; خيمة داود الساقطة (CRITICAL); أُقيم (raise up — القيامة root-resonance, non-equivalence flagged); البقية الباقية (High); دُعي اسمي عليهم (CRITICAL); سأرد سبي شعبي/لن يُقتَلعوا (High, إسرائيل political-sensitivity inheritance)Reviewed — the sole chapter carrying the Messianic Hope doctrine; also closes Sovereignty doctrine (9:7)

Coverage confirmation: all nine chapters of Amos have been reviewed. No chapter is silently omitted; Chapters 1, 6, and 7 carry comparatively lighter new-term density but each contributes load-bearing material (universal Gentile accountability, false security, prophetic authority/measurement imagery respectively) and is retained above.


2. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

DoctrineAvailable Destination-Language TermsWeaknesses / Collision RisksRecommended Strategy
Social Justice and Care for the Poorالفقراء / المساكين / المظلومون (poor/needy); العدل (justice, mishpat); البر (righteousness, tsedaqah — baseline reuse); الرشوة (bribe); موازين الغش (false balances); باب المدينة (the gate)(1) الفقراء/المساكين overlaps positively but too comfortably with Qur’anic zakāt-recipient categories (9:60), inviting readers to domesticate Amos’s systemic, structural charge into a call for more personal almsgiving. (2) العدل is a divine name (Al-ʻAdl) and skews toward formal legal/retributive fairness in popular usage, not Amos’s “social current protecting the powerless” sense. (3) البر is CRITICAL-locked in the baseline to the forensic/imputed sense; Amos’s usage is ethical-social (fruit, not root). (4) ميزان must never appear unqualified (see Section 3).Always anchor “poor/needy” occurrences to their concrete textual referent (rigged courts, dishonest weights, debt-slavery, land seizure) rather than leaving the term in the abstract. Pair العدل consistently with concrete social content. Teach البر in Amos explicitly as fruit-of-relationship, cross-referenced to (not substituted for) the Romans forensic sense, per the added contextual note in 08_core_glossary.md. Never render “balances/scales” as bare ميزان; always compound with الغش.
Judgment on Empty Religious Ritualأُبغِض…أرفض (I hate, I despise); أعيادكم/محافلكم المقدسة (feasts/assemblies); المحرقات/التقدمة/ذبائح السلامة (offerings); ضجيج أغانيكم (noise of songs); العُشور (tithe)(1) أُبغِض…أرفض risks softening to a single muted verb, erasing the force of active divine revulsion (vs. mere indifference). (2) أعيادكم shares its root (ح-ج-ج) with حجّ (ḥajj) — a genuine positive resonance, but readers may wrongly infer Amos condemns pilgrimage/ritual as such rather than ritual detached from justice. (3) ذبائح السلامة risks bleeding into the baseline’s النEW peace_with_god doctrine (السلام مع الله) as though the OT cultic peace-offering and the NT forensic peace were the same category. (4) العُشور parallels Islamic fiqh ‘ushr closely enough to suggest correct ritual performance is self-evidently pleasing to God — precisely what Amos denies.Retain both verbs in “I hate, I despise” at full force; never collapse to one. Use Qur’an 107 (Sūrat al-Mā’ūn, ritual prayer without care for the needy) as an explicit apologetic bridge — Amos’s logic, not Amos’s target, is the same critique structure. Add a standing note wherever offerings/festivals are named: the object of judgment is ritual severed from justice, not ritual itself. Flag ذبائح السلامة with the baseline peace_with_god cross-reference note already recorded in the glossary.
God’s Sovereignty over All Nationsمعاصٍ/تعدّيات (transgression, applied identically to Gentile nations and Israel); رب الجنود (LORD of hosts); الأمم (nations — baseline reuse); عرفتُ/اخترتُ (yada, election); الكوشيون (Cushites, 9:7)(1) معاصٍ/تعدّيات holding Gentile nations without Torah morally accountable runs against Islamic fiṭrah’s innate-purity default in a different direction than the baseline’s sin note — here the problem is not denial of inherited guilt but denial that nations lacking revealed Scripture can be culpable by natural-law standards at all. (2) رب الجنود risks a militarized/nationalist misreading given regional political sensitivities around religiously-framed warfare rhetoric. (3) 9:7’s flattening of Israel’s uniqueness (“like the Cushites to me”) risks being read in isolation as contradicting 3:2’s election language rather than completing it.Teach transgression-of-nations passages (1:3-2:3) as a natural-law argument (basic moral crimes: violence, betrayal of covenant, cruelty in war) distinct from Torah-violation, made explicit rather than assumed shared. Keep “hosts” cosmic (heavenly armies under God’s command), not this-worldly. Always pair 9:7 pedagogically with 3:2 — chosen and accountable, and impartially sovereign over all peoples, are the same paradox, not competing claims.
The Day of the LORD as Judgmentيوم الرب (Day of the LORD); ظلام/لا نور (darkness/not light); استعدّ للقاء إلهك (prepare to meet your God); خيط الشاقول (plumb line, ch. 7); ثمر الصيف/النهاية (summer-fruit pun, ch. 8)(1) يوم الرب has no lexical overlap with يوم القيامة/يوم الدين/يوم الحساب but readers will inevitably read it through that same eschatological lattice — a single-event, deeds-weighed, universal Judgment Day. Amos’s near/far, already/not-yet, covenant-particular structure is easily lost. (2) نور collides with a positively-loaded Qur’anic guidance metaphor (An-Nūr; darkness-to-light = unbelief-to-Islam) and must be kept strictly situational. (3) لقاء الله is devotionally positive in some Islamic piety (a hoped-for reunion in paradise); here it is a confrontational summons. (4) The قيص/قץ pun has zero phonetic equivalent in Arabic.At every يوم الرب occurrence, supply the two-horizon correction (near historical judgment — Assyrian conquest — and a final horizon) and the covenant-particularity correction (God’s reckoning with His own people first, not a generic universal event). Keep نور/ظلام situational-calamitous, never epistemological. Keep استعدّ للقاء إلهك ominous, not devotional. Insert an explicit [TRANSLATOR NOTE] at 8:1-2 rather than force an artificial Arabic pun.
The Restoration of David’s Fallen Tent (Messianic Hope)خيمة داود الساقطة (fallen tent of David); أُقيم (raise up); البقية الباقية (remnant); دُعي اسمي عليهم (called by my name); سأرد سبي شعبي/لن يُقتَلعوا (restore the fortunes)(1) The entire unit is a single dense messianic complex compressed into five verses (9:11-15); no individual term-level fix substitutes for teaching the passage as a unit. (2) أُقيم’s root resonance with القيامة risks either an unhelped audience missing a fruitful typological connection, or an over-eager audience collapsing “raising up a fallen dynasty” into “bodily resurrection” as though the same doctrine. (3) إسرائيل in 9:14-15’s unshakeable-restoration promise carries acute, live political charge given contemporary usage. (4) دُعي اسمي عليهم as the OT root of Gentile inclusion is doctrinally CRITICAL but linguistically unremarkable — the risk is entirely that its significance goes untaught, not that the words themselves mislead.Teach 9:11-15 as one integrated unit, explicitly reversing 5:1-2’s funeral dirge (fallen/raised literary inclusio). Flag the أُقيم/القيامة connection as a fruitful teaching bridge, not a doctrinal equivalence — state this distinction explicitly every time. Apply the baseline’s full إسرائيل political-sensitivity framing to 9:14-15 with no reduction. Always cross-reference دُعي اسمي عليهم to Acts 15:16-17 so its Gentile-inclusion weight is surfaced, not left implicit.

3. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

3.1 Genuinely missing vocabulary (no single Arabic lexical item covers the concept)

ConceptGapRecommended handling
בְּרִית אַחִים brit achim (1:9)No single Arabic noun for a formal inter-national kinship-treaty distinct from a personal covenantCompound phrase عهد الإخوة, built on baseline العهد; gloss “treaty of brotherhood between peoples” at first use
אֲנָךְ anakh, plumb line (7:7-9)Modern Arabic has خيط الشاقول (builder’s term) but no theologically pre-loaded equivalent, unlike the missing מֹאזְנֵי which collides with an existing loaded termUse the neutral technical term precisely because it is unloaded; do not import ميزان
קַיִץ / קֵץ qayits/qets pun (8:1-2)No Arabic root pair reproduces the Hebrew phonetic pun (ثمر الصيف vs. النهاية share no sound correspondence)Paraphrase plus mandatory [TRANSLATOR NOTE] per baseline convention; do not force an artificial Arabic wordplay that could mislead
מִקְדַּשׁ־מֶלֶךְ miqdash-melekh, “king’s sanctuary” (7:13)No single Arabic term for a state-co-opted royal shrine as an institution-typeDescriptive phrase مقدس الملك with a brief historical-cultural gloss on Bethel’s political function
שַׁעַר sha’ar, the gate as judicial site (5:10-15)No functioning modern equivalent institution (city-gate courts)باب المدينة plus gloss “مكان القضاء” (place of judgment) at first use
The near/far double horizon of “the Day of the LORD”No existing Arabic theological term captures this already/not-yet structure independent of full explanatory scaffoldingCannot be solved lexically; requires recurring exegetical framing note wherever يوم الرب appears (see Section 2 above)

3.2 Crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring deliberate fencing

These are cases where Arabic does have an available, even natural-sounding term, but that term’s dominant contemporary or Islamic-theological associations threaten to overwrite Amos’s intended sense. Each requires an explicit fence (a rejected alternative, a required qualifier, or a standing contextual note).

Arabic term/rootCrowding sourceFence required
ميزان (scale/balance)Islamic eschatological Mīzān, the deeds-weighing scale of Judgment Day (Qur’an 21:47; 101:6-9)NEVER use unqualified for Amos 7:7-9’s plumb line (use خيط الشاقول instead) or leave bare in 8:5-6 (always compound as موازين الغش)
النذيرQur’an’s defining prophetic title “the Warner” (35:23-24), despite genuine ن-ذ-ر cognate with Nazirite vowUse الناذر or a descriptive phrase, never النذير, for Nazirite (2:11-12)
المطمئنون / طمأنينة root (ط-م-أ-ن)Positively-loaded Qur’anic “al-nafs al-muṭma’innah,” the soul at peace with God (89:27)Use الغافلون (the heedless) for “those at ease/complacent” (6:1), never المطمئنون
التوبة / يتوب (root ت-و-ب)Islamic tawbah as a self-sufficient salvific mechanism (sincere repentance + amendment alone secures forgiveness)Frame “return” (4:6-11) explicitly as covenant-appropriate response within an existing relationship, never an independent means of earning restored favor; cross-reference NT grace teaching
لقاء اللهSome devotional Islamic usage: a positively-anticipated meeting with God in paradiseKeep “prepare to meet your God” (4:12) confrontational; do not let translation drift toward devotional anticipation
نور / ظلامAn-Nūr (a divine name); Qur’anic light/darkness = guidance/ignorance epistemological metaphorKeep strictly situational (safety vs. calamity) in 5:18,20 and 8:9; do not let it read as a guidance metaphor
سرّ / أسرارSufi mystical asrār, esoteric knowledge reserved for a spiritual eliteClarify 3:7’s “secret/counsel” as God’s plan disclosed through the ordinary covenantal prophetic office, not private mystical illumination
العدلAl-ʻAdl, one of Allah’s 99 names; popular skew toward formal legal/retributive fairnessAlways anchor to concrete social content (fair courts, honest wages/weights, protection of the poor) in every occurrence of mishpat
البرQur’anic al-birr (2:177) works-checklist sense (already CRITICAL-fenced in the baseline for Romans)In Amos, add the ethical-social “fruit” contextual note (08_core_glossary.md) so the fence functions bidirectionally with the baseline’s forensic “root” fence
الفقراء / المساكينQur’anic zakāt-recipient categories (9:60) — a positive but domesticating overlapAnchor to Amos’s concrete, systemic referents (courts, markets, land, debt) so the charge is not read as satisfied by personal almsgiving
حجّ-root (أعياد/محافل)حجّ, one of Islam’s five pillars, shares the ح-ج-ج root with ḥagTreat as a genuine positive bridge but clarify the target of judgment is ritual-without-justice, applicable in principle to any tradition’s observance
الدعوةIslamic da’wah, human invitation of others to IslamRetain baseline direction-of-address distinction for Amos’s own prophetic calling (7:14-15) and for 9:12’s “called by my name”: God’s sovereign summons runs the opposite direction
إسرائيلContemporary political usage (modern nation-state, Israeli-Palestinian conflict)Apply baseline framing without reduction at every occurrence, with maximal deliberateness at 9:14-15’s unshakeable-restoration promise
السلام (via ذبائح السلامة)Baseline’s peace_with_god doctrine (Romans 5:1)Explicit note distinguishing the OT cultic peace-offering from the NT forensic peace it anticipates, so the two are read as complementary, not contradictory
القيامة (via أُقيم)Baseline’s resurrection doctrineExplicit “fruitful connection, not equivalence” note at every occurrence of 9:11’s “raise up”

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

ItemDecisionRationale
YHWHParaphrase/substitution — render as الرب (never transliterate as a separate form)Matches established Arabic Bible tradition and the baseline’s yahweh/lord entries exactly; preserves the theological bridge to the NT confession
Nazirite (נָזִיר)Paraphrase — الناذر / المكرَّس لله, with descriptive gloss at first useA transliteration (e.g., “نازيري”) would be opaque to readers; the natural cognate النذير is doctrinally unsafe (see Section 3.2); paraphrase is required
Cushites (כּוּשִׁים)Transliteration — الكوشيونEstablished, low-risk proper-noun form (Nubians/Ethiopians); no viable alternative and no doctrinal collision
Sela, Bozrah, Karioth, Lo-debar, Karnaim, other minor geographic proper nouns (1:3-2:3, 6:13)Transliteration, following standard Van Dyck/NAV geographic-name conventionsProper nouns; consistency with established Arabic Bible atlas naming is the only requirement
קַיִץ / קֵץ pun (8:1-2)Paraphrase with mandatory translator’s note; no attempted Arabic wordplayNo phonetic equivalent exists; forcing one risks either losing the theological point (ripeness=readiness for judgment) or introducing an unintended pun with different associations
אֲנָךְ, plumb line (7:7-9)Paraphrase — خيط الشاقول (descriptive technical compound)No single-word Arabic equivalent exists; the descriptive phrase is unloaded, unlike the tempting but forbidden ميزان
שְׁאֵרִית, remnant (9:12)Paraphrase — البقية الباقية (emphatic doubling for theological weight)No single Arabic word carries sufficient doctrinal weight alone; the doubled phrase signals “the surviving, still-existing portion” with the emphasis Amos’s climactic use requires
Abba-style Aramaic retention pattern (cf. baseline abba)Not applicable in Amos — no Aramaic terms of intimacy occurNoted for completeness; no decision required this book
הוֹי, “Woe” (5:18)Paraphrase into established liturgical form — الويلNot transliterated; Arabic Bible tradition already has an established funeral-cry rendering (cf. Matthew 23’s “woes”), reused here for cross-Testament consistency
מִשְׁפָּט / צְדָקָה pairing (5:24)Paraphrase, reusing established single-word renderings — العدل / البرBoth already exist as baseline-adjacent single words; no transliteration warranted; risk is managed through contextual fencing (Section 2), not through word-formation choice

5. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities in Amos

Ranked by combined doctrinal weight and likelihood of silent misreading if left unaddressed.

  1. יוֹם יְהוָה — “the Day of the LORD” (5:18-20, core passage; echoed 8:9-10). Highest risk in the book: the term will be assimilated wholesale into the Islamic eschatological lattice (يوم القيامة/يوم الدين) unless the near/far, already/not-yet, covenant-particular structure is actively taught at every occurrence. This is also the doctrinal center of the core passage.
  2. מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה — false balances (8:5-6), and by extension אֲנָךְ, plumb line (7:7-9). The direct root-cognate collision between Hebrew moznayim and Arabic ميزان risks accidentally invoking the Islamic deeds-weighing Mīzān in a passage about literal marketplace fraud; the fencing (compound with الغش; use خيط الشاقول rather than ميزان for the unrelated plumb-line image) must be applied with zero exceptions.
  3. שָׂנֵאתִי מָאַסְתִּי — “I hate, I despise” (5:21, core passage). High risk of pastoral softening (translators/teachers instinctively muting divine anger language); the doctrinal point of the entire core passage depends on retaining full force at both verbs.
  4. סֻכַּת דָּוִיד הַנֹּפֶלֶת / נִקְרָא שְׁמִי עֲלֵיהֶם — the fallen tent of David and “called by my name” (9:11-12). Compressed, CRITICAL-tier messianic-Gentile-inclusion complex; risk is not mistranslation but under-explanation — the words are lexically unremarkable but their Acts 15 significance is easily left untaught.
  5. פֶּשַׁע applied to Gentile nations (1:3-2:3) vs. Israel/Judah (2:4-16). Risk of collapsing the natural-law argument (nations without Torah still morally accountable) into either (a) the baseline’s milder الخطية sense, or (b) an assumption that only revealed-Scripture violation counts as guilt — both undercut the “Sovereignty over All Nations” doctrine’s universal-accountability claim.
  6. יָדַע — “you only have I known” (3:2). Risk of flattening into generic divine omniscience (a comfortable, uncontested claim in Islamic theology) rather than exclusive elective covenant choice paired with intensified — not removed — accountability.
  7. שׁוּב — “return” (4:6-11). Risk of silently importing the Islamic tawbah framework (repentance as an independent, self-sufficient means of securing restored favor) onto a text where “return” is a covenant-internal response to discipline, not a freestanding transaction.
  8. נִחַם — “the LORD relented” (7:3,6). Risk of being read either as divine error/change of eternal character (offensive to tanzīh) or, if over-corrected, flattened into pure metaphor that erases the genuine relational responsiveness to Amos’s intercession the text actually depicts.
  9. הֵקִים — “I will raise up” (9:11) and its root-resonance with القيامة. Risk runs in both directions: under-taught, the fruitful redemptive-historical pattern is missed; over-taught, learners may wrongly equate “raising up a fallen dynasty” with the doctrine of bodily resurrection.
  10. שׁוּב שְׁבוּת / נָתַשׁ — “restore the fortunes… never again uprooted” (9:14-15), and אֶרֶץ/עַם ownership language generally in ch. 9. Contemporary political weight of إسرائيل makes this closing promise the passage most likely to be read (or deliberately misread) as a statement on the present Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than a redemptive-historical, messianic-kingdom promise.
  11. הוֹי and the qinah/dirge form (5:1-2, 18) as literary genre markers. Lower doctrinal weight but real risk of the funeral-cry force being lost if rendered as a flat warning (“beware”) rather than the specific prophetic-lament convention the book deliberately reverses at 9:11-15.
  12. קַיִץ/קֵץ pun (8:1-2). Lowest risk on this list in doctrinal terms (the theological point — ripeness for judgment — is simple) but highest risk of a well-intentioned translator attempting a clever but misleading Arabic wordplay in place of the required translator’s note.

This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline translation_memory.json, bible_term_registry.json, and doctrine_risk_registry.json. All Amos-specific term decisions recorded above must be carried forward into 08_core_glossary.md and the Amos additions to the translation memory before Phase 2 segment translation begins.

Library content is free and openly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 — share and adapt it for non-commercial use, with attribution to tri-bible.ai.

Give feedback

How would you rate this page?

0 / 500 words