Linguistic Gap Analysis

Linguistic Gap Analysis: Amos

0. Purpose and Method

This document identifies where Hindi’s existing theological vocabulary (as fixed by the baseline Romans/Galatians translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json) is sufficient, where it is insufficient and needs new coinage or compound phrasing, and where existing Hindi religious vocabulary is crowded — i.e., the natural Hindi word overlaps semantically with a Hindu/folk-religious concept in a way that risks importing that concept into the biblical text. It also fixes transliteration-vs-paraphrase decisions for Amos-specific proper nouns and idioms, and ranks the letter’s highest-risk ambiguities for review routing.

This analysis governs and precedes the 08_core_glossary.md term list and the assets/bible_term_registry.json entries already produced for Amos; every recommendation below is reflected in, and must never be contradicted by, those two artifacts. Where this document and the glossary appear to differ in wording, the glossary’s exact Hindi rendering governs; this document supplies the reasoning behind that choice.

Full-book scope: all nine chapters of Amos are surveyed below, either in the Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix, the Semantic Neighborhood Fencing section, or the chapter coverage note in §5. No chapter is silently skipped.

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

For each of the five curriculum doctrines (plus the adjacent doctrines Amos load-bears), this matrix records: what Hindi vocabulary already exists (from the baseline or general Hindi Christian usage), where that vocabulary is weak or absent for Amos’s specific claims, and the recommended strategy.

Aspect	Detail
Available Hindi terms	धार्मिकता (baseline, righteousness/tsedaqah), दीन, कंगाल/दरिद्र (general Hindi terms for poor/needy), घूस (bribe, standard Hindi)
Weakness	No baseline term exists for מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat, “justice”) — Romans/Galatians never required a standalone social-justice term, since Paul’s argument centers on forensic justification rather than societal right-order. Hindi न्याय is available and unambiguous as a legal/civic term, but by itself it risks being read as merely procedural fairness (court outcomes) rather than the full OT prophetic sense of right social order flowing from God’s own character — economic fairness, protection of the poor, honest courts, together.
Recommended strategy	Adopt न्याय as the fixed rendering of mishpat, elevated to Critical risk (new term, not adjustable), and mandate that it is never translated or glossed without its inseparable pairing with धार्मिकता, exactly reproducing Amos 5:24’s parallelism. A standing translator note must state that न्याय here names right social order, not merely legal procedure. दीन/कंगाल/दरिद्र require no new coinage but must be kept consistently mapped: दीन = דַּל (dal, physically trampled poor), कंगाल/दरिद्र = אֶבְיוֹן (evyon, destitute needy) — see §2.2 for the fencing rationale.

1.2 Judgment on Empty Religious Ritual

Aspect	Detail
Available Hindi terms	पवित्र (baseline, holy), बलि/यज्ञ (general Hindi sacrificial vocabulary, explicitly rejected by the baseline for NT living_sacrifice)
Weakness	Amos names literal, God-commanded Levitical sacrifice categories (burnt, grain, peace offerings) that the baseline never had to render, because Paul’s letters use बलिदान/यज्ञ-adjacent imagery only metaphorically (living_sacrifice). Amos requires literal referents for real historical rites that God himself instituted — and then, paradoxically, tells Israel he “hates” and “despises” (5:21). This is the opposite theological direction from a simple बलि/यज्ञ rejection: God is not condemning ritual as such but ritual severed from justice. Hindi has no single existing term that carries both “this is a legitimate, God-given form” and “but it has become detestable.”
Recommended strategy	Use specific Levitical-category terms — होमबलि (burnt offering), अन्नबलि/भेंट (grain offering), मेलबलि (peace offering) — never generic बलि/यज्ञ, to keep the rite anchored to its literal OT referent rather than to Hindu ritual-offering categories. Mandatory translator note on every occurrence of 5:21-23: this is not a blanket rejection of ritual, liturgy, or corporate worship (which God himself instituted), but a rejection of ritual detached from justice (5:24). The two rejection verbs (שָׂנֵאתִי / מָאַסְתִּי) must retain double intensity — a single softened verb collapses the covenant-lawsuit tone.

1.3 God’s Sovereignty over All Nations

Aspect	Detail
Available Hindi terms	परमेश्वर की संप्रभुता (baseline, sovereignty), सृजनहार (baseline, creator)
Weakness	The baseline sovereignty entry was built for Romans 8–11’s providence/predestination arguments concerning believers. Amos requires the same term to carry God’s providential governance of pagan nations’ migrations and histories (9:7) and his direct moral accountability of Gentile nations for covenant-breaking (1:9) and war-crimes (1:3,13; 2:1) — a considerably wider scope than the baseline anticipated. There is also a distinctive risk: Amos 3:2’s election language (“you only have I known”) could, in a culture attentive to hereditary/caste-conferred spiritual status, be misread as conferring permanent superiority rather than greater accountability.
Recommended strategy	Reuse परमेश्वर की संप्रभुता and सृजनहार exactly, but attach doctrine-level translator notes at 1:3–2:16 (nations judged by the same moral standard as Israel) and at 9:7 (Israel’s status compared explicitly to the Cushites’) making clear that election is relational and accountability-generating, never a caste-like permanent rank. The God of Hosts doxology (יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי־צְבָאוֹת) requires careful fencing — see §2.3.

1.4 The Day of the Lord as Judgment

Aspect	Detail
Available Hindi terms	None in baseline (Romans/Galatians never uses this specific OT prophetic formula as a technical term)
Weakness	This is a wholly new technical term for the curriculum. Hindi has a natural phrase for “an auspicious/inauspicious day” (शुभ/अशुभ दिन) rooted in panchang (Hindu almanac) day-reckoning — astrologically calculated, impersonal, and calculable by ritual specialists. Amos’s “Day of the LORD” is the opposite: a specific, personal, morally-freighted day of divine reckoning fixed by a covenant God’s own will, not by cosmic calculation.
Recommended strategy	Fix यहोवा का दिन as the rendering (using the personal name यहोवा, never a generic “God’s day,” to keep the personal covenant framing audible). Absolutely avoid any phrase built on शुभ/अशुभ. Critical risk, theologian review at every occurrence (1:14; 2:16; 5:18[×2],20; 8:3,9,13; 9:11).

1.5 The Restoration of David’s Fallen Tent (Messianic Hope)

Aspect	Detail
Available Hindi terms	दाऊद (baseline proper name), बहाली (baseline, restoration), बचे हुए लोग (baseline, remnant)
Weakness	The chief danger is cross-curriculum collision, not lack of vocabulary: Amos 9:11’s “raise up” (הָקִים) the fallen tent of David is a dynastic-restoration verb, and Hindi naturally reaches for पुनरुत्थान-adjacent vocabulary for “raise up from a fallen/dead state.” But पुनरुत्थान is baseline-reserved, Critically, for Christ’s own bodily resurrection. Using it here would create serious doctrinal confusion between David’s dynasty being politically/covenantally restored and Christ’s unique bodily rising. A second risk is the MT/LXX textual divergence (אֱדוֹם “Edom” vs. אָדָם “mankind”) that underlies Acts 15’s Gentile-inclusion argument — a textual-critical gap with real doctrinal stakes for any curriculum connecting Amos to Acts.
Recommended strategy	Use फिर से खड़ा करना / बनाना (raise up / rebuild) — ordinary construction-and-restoration vocabulary — and explicitly forbid any पुनरुत्थान-family word here. Attach a mandatory theologian’s footnote at 9:12 documenting the LXX’s “मनुष्यों में से बचे हुए लोग” reading alongside the MT-based “एदोम के बचे हुए लोग,” so material connecting Amos 9 to Acts 15:16-17 is not caught off guard.

1.6 Adjacent Doctrines Amos Load-Bears (not in the five named, but required for full coverage)

Doctrine	Gap	Strategy
Divine Calling / Prophetic Authority (chs. 3, 7)	Baseline बुलाए हुए/बुलाहट was built for salvation-calling and apostleship; Amos 7:14-15 requires it to carry anti-guild, anti-pedigree force (“I was no prophet…the LORD took me”)	Reuse baseline terms exactly; add note that authority here explicitly excludes guru-lineage/professional-succession models common in Indian religious authority structures.
Inspiration of Scripture / Revelation (chs. 1, 3, 8)	Baseline प्रकाशन assumes NT apostolic commissioning contexts; Amos requires it for a Hebrew prophet’s חָזוֹן (vision) and סוֹד (God’s secret counsel)	Reuse प्रकाशन/भेद; explicitly fence off दर्शन (see §2.4).
Repentance (ch. 4)	Baseline मन फिराव assumes a decisive one-time conversion-turning; Amos 4:6-11’s five-fold refrain describes repeated, God-initiated disciplinary calls that Israel repeatedly refuses	Reuse मन फिराव; note the refrain’s repeated-refusal structure must stay visible across all five occurrences, not smoothed into one generic statement.
Intercession / Providence (ch. 7)	Baseline मध्यस्थता and “the Lord relented” language risk collision with an ANE/Hindu-devotional expectation that correct ritual technique (puja) placates a deity	Mandatory note distinguishing God’s own sovereign, relational mercy responding to Amos’s prayer from a mechanical ritual-appeasement model.

2. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods Requiring Fencing

Amos activates several Hindi word-fields that are already “crowded” with Hindu religious associations. Each needs an explicit fence — a rule about which sense is permitted and which is forbidden.

2.1 The Divine-Name Field: परमेश्वर / यहोवा / प्रभु / प्रभु यहोवा

Amos uses the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) over 80 times, far more densely than Romans/Galatians, and frequently combines it with אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) as the solemn double title. This is a genuinely new gap: the baseline never needed to distinguish the personal covenant name from the generic term for deity at this density.

Fence: परमेश्वर = Elohim (generic term for God/deity — shared vocabulary with Hindu religious discourse, where ईश्वर/भगवान/परमेश्वर can denote any supreme being); यहोवा = YHWH (the specific, personal, self-revealing covenant name — never to be collapsed into परमेश्वर, or the covenant-betrayal logic of ch. 2, where Israel alone is judged by covenant standards, loses its ground); प्रभु = Adonai (Lord/Master, exclusive supreme authority, consistent with the baseline lordship_of_christ fence); प्रभु यहोवा = the combined “Sovereign LORD” formula, rendered identically at every one of its ~20 occurrences to preserve its function as a structural marker of the book’s most solemn oracles.
Risk if unfenced: Collapsing यहोवा into परमेश्वर would make Amos read as generic monotheistic moralizing rather than the covenant-God-by-name confronting his own named covenant partner — a meaning at the very center of chapter 2’s argument that Israel, unlike the nations, is judged for breaking a personal relationship, not merely universal ethics.

2.2 The Poor/Needy Field: दीन / कंगाल / दरिद्र / गरीब

Hindi has a rich general vocabulary for poverty, some of which (e.g., दरिद्र) carries mild connotations in popular Hindu thought of karmic consequence (poverty as the fruit of past-life demerit) rather than pure circumstance or victimhood.

Fence: אֶבְיוֹן (evyon, destitute needy, recurring 2:6; 4:1; 5:12; 8:4,6) = कंगाल/दरिद्र; דַּל (dal, the physically weak/trampled poor, 2:7; 4:1; 8:6) = दीन. Both terms must be read in Amos as victims of active human exploitation (oppress/crush, עָשַׁק/רָצַץ, 4:1), never as people whose condition reflects their own moral or karmic failing. A standing translator note at 2:6-8 should make explicit that Amos identifies the oppressor’s sin, not the poor person’s demerit, as the cause.
Risk if unfenced: Any drift toward a karma-inflected reading of दरिद्र/दीन would invert Amos’s entire social-justice argument, shifting moral blame from the exploiting elite onto the exploited poor.

2.3 The Divine-Army Field: सेनाओं का परमेश्वर (God of Hosts)

The recurring doxology יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי־צְבָאוֹת (4:13; 5:8-9,27; 6:14; 9:5-6) risks being heard, in a culture with an active devas-and-celestial-armies imagination, as “a chief god who commands lesser divine armies” — structurally similar to a Hindu pantheon with a supreme deity commanding subordinate gods/spirits.

Fence: सेनाओं का परमेश्वर यहोवा उसका नाम है must be understood and, where space allows, glossed as God’s singular, absolute command over all creation and celestial powers — not one deity among a commanding hierarchy of others. This directly reinforces the baseline’s existing caution (from the trinity/holy_spirit entries) against any plural-divinity drift.
Risk if unfenced: A pantheon-compatible reading would soften Amos’s uncompromising monotheism into a “supreme god among many,” undermining both the Sovereignty-over-Nations doctrine and the book’s repeated exclusive-YHWH polemic.

2.4 The Vision/Revelation Field: दर्शन / प्रकाशन / साक्षात्कार

Already fenced at the Galatians layer of the baseline (revelation entry), this fence must be explicitly re-applied and strengthened for Amos, since Amos is a book substantially about visionary prophetic experience (the five visions of chs. 7–9) — far more visually and experientially framed than anything in Romans/Galatians.

Fence: חָזוֹן (ḥazon, vision) = प्रकाशन in objective-disclosure contexts (the book’s opening superscription, 1:1) or a glossed दिव्य दर्शन only with an explicit note, never bare दर्शन. סוֹד (sod, secret counsel, 3:7) = भेद exactly as baseline.
Risk if unfenced: Bare दर्शन would frame Amos’s prophetic visions as a devotee’s auspicious beholding of a deity (a devotional attainment sought by the worshipper), rather than God’s own unsolicited, sovereign disclosure to an unwilling herdsman (7:14-15) — inverting the initiative from God to the human seer.

2.5 The Sacrifice/Offering Field: होमबलि / अन्नबलि / मेलबलि vs. बलि / यज्ञ

Already flagged in §1.2 above; restated here as a fencing rule because it is the single most consequential lexical choice in the core passage (5:21-23).

Fence: Use the specific Levitical category names for each named rite; never the generic बलि/यज्ञ, which the baseline explicitly rejects for living_sacrifice and which here would assimilate God’s own instituted sacrificial system to generic Hindu propitiatory-offering logic (an offering given to a deity to secure favor, precisely the pattern the baseline propitiation entry cautions against for prāyaścitta).
Risk if unfenced: बलि/यज्ञ would blur the crucial distinction Amos draws between legitimate rites now corrupted by injustice and illegitimate appeasement ritual — the text’s argument depends on the reader knowing these were God’s own commanded forms, now rejected specifically because justice is absent (5:24), not because ritual worship as such is illegitimate.

2.6 The Justice/Righteousness Field: न्याय / धार्मिकता / धर्म

The single highest-stakes fence in the whole curriculum, because Hindi धर्म sits directly adjacent to both mishpat and tsedaqah conceptually (cosmic/social right order) while being absolutely forbidden by the baseline for both righteousness and law.

Fence: न्याय (mishpat) and धार्मिकता (tsedaqah, baseline-reused) must always appear paired (5:24) and must never be glossed with or substituted by धर्म, which would assert “cosmic duty flowing through cosmic duty” — collapsing Amos’s ethical-covenantal argument into a generic dharma-discourse statement compatible with any religious tradition’s notion of social order, thereby erasing the specifically YHWH-covenantal ground of the demand.
Risk if unfenced: This is the single most likely place for a Hindi speaker, absent explicit prohibition, to reach instinctively for धर्म, since “justice and righteousness” sounds to a Hindi ear like “dharma” language. This risk is elevated above even the baseline’s existing law/righteousness prohibitions because Amos’s specific literary structure (5:24’s parallel couplet) invites a single unifying Hindi gloss, and धर्म is the most natural unifying candidate.

3. Missing Vocabulary (New Coinage / Compound-Phrase Requirements)

The following concepts have no adequate single-word Hindi equivalent and require either a fixed compound phrase or a mandatory explanatory note, extending the baseline’s established pattern (e.g., justification’s धर्मी ठहराया जाना).

Gap	Why a single word fails	Fixed Hindi solution
מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat) as social order, not mere verdict	न्याय alone can mean either narrow legal procedure or the full prophetic vision; Hindi has no word carrying both senses at Amos’s intended weight	न्याय + mandatory note anchoring it to Amos 5:24’s inseparable pairing with धार्मिकता
”Three transgressions…and four” (idiom of overflowing completeness)	A literal Hindi rendering (तीन अपराध…चार) invites readers to search the text for an exact list of 3-4 sins, which does not exist	Fixed phrase …के तीन अपराधों, वरन चार के कारण + mandatory idiom-note at first occurrence (1:3), reapplied silently but consistently across all eight oracles
קַיִץ / קֵץ pun (summer fruit / the end)	Untranslatable wordplay; no Hindi pair of words shares this near-homophony	Render both senses literally (गर्मी के फल की टोकरी / अन्त आ पहुंचा है) with a mandatory translator’s note explaining the lost pun — a translation-mechanics flag, not a doctrinal-collision flag
הָקִים (raise up, of David’s fallen tent)	Hindi’s natural “raise up from a fallen/ruined state” vocabulary overlaps with resurrection vocabulary reserved elsewhere	Fixed phrase फिर से खड़ा करना / बनाना; पुनरुत्थान forbidden here by cross-curriculum rule
שׁוּב שְׁבוּת (restore the fortunes)	A bare “restore” fails to capture the idiom’s sense of a comprehensive covenant-blessing reversal	Fixed phrase मैं अपनी प्रजा इस्राएल की समृद्धि लौटाऊंगा, consistent with baseline बहाली
בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָפְלָה (virgin Israel has fallen)	A flat “Israel has declined” loses the funeral-dirge genre-marking and finality	Fixed phrase इस्राएल की कुंवारी कन्या गिर पड़ी है, वह फिर न उठेगी, retaining dirge force
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי מֵשִׁים אֲנָךְ (the plumb-line vision)	Hindi साहुल is available but culturally unfamiliar as a judgment-standard metaphor to many urban readers	साहुल + explanatory note: an objective, non-negotiable builder’s standard, used here for God’s precise verdict

4. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Item	Decision	Rationale
Proper names (YHWH, David, Israel, Bethel, Gilgal, Beersheba, Zion, Carmel, Cushites, Edom, Samaria, Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab)	Transliterate, using established BSI OV forms where they exist (यहोवा, दाऊद, इस्राएल, सिय्योन, कर्मेल, कूशी, एदोम, शोमरोन, दमिश्क, गाज़ा, सोर)	Consistency with the whole-Bible naming convention already fixed by the baseline; historical-geographic specificity must be preserved, not domesticated.
Sikkuth / Kiyyun (astral idol names, 5:26)	Transliterate (सिक्कूत / कीयून) + explanatory footnote identifying them as foreign astral deities	These are proper names of specific pagan deities; paraphrasing (e.g., “star-idols”) would lose their historical specificity and the point that Israel’s syncretism involved named, not generic, foreign gods.
Nazirite (נָזִיר)	Transliterate (नाज़ीरी) + explanatory note	No native Hindi equivalent; paraphrasing as a general “ascetic” (तपस्वी/साधु) would wrongly assimilate this time-bound, God-instituted vow to Hindu lifelong renunciation (sannyasa) traditions.
Ephah / Shekel (measurement/currency units)	Transliterate (एपा / शेकेल) + footnote	Concrete ANE units with no Hindi equivalent measure; footnoting preserves the commercial-fraud referent (shrinking the measure, inflating the price) without requiring readers to track exact ancient quantities.
מִשְׁפָּט (mishpat)	Paraphrase-fix as न्याय, not transliterate	Unlike proper nouns, this is a common theological noun requiring full comprehension by the reader, not merely phonetic preservation; a transliterated Hebrew loanword would be theologically opaque to a Hindi Bible-study audience.
יוֹם יְהוָה (Day of the LORD)	Paraphrase-fix as यहोवा का दिन, not transliterate	Same reasoning; this must function as intelligible, teachable vocabulary across the whole curriculum, not a foreign-sounding loan phrase.
”Three transgressions…and four” idiom	Paraphrase literally + note, not adapted to a Hindi idiom of similar structure	No equivalent Hindi numeral-idiom of overflowing completeness exists; a literal rendering with an explanatory note is safer than inventing a loose dynamic equivalent that might not carry the “completeness” sense at all.
קַיִץ / קֵץ pun	Paraphrase both senses literally + mandatory note, no attempt at pun-reconstruction	Any attempt to manufacture an artificial Hindi pun risks distorting either the “summer fruit” or “the end” sense; transparency about the loss is safer than a forced, potentially misleading wordplay substitute.
אֲנָךְ (plumb line)	Paraphrase-fix as साहुल + explanatory note, not transliterate	साहुल is an existing, correct Hindi word for the tool; the note supplies the cultural-metaphor bridge, not the vocabulary itself.

5. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Note

Every chapter of Amos has been surveyed for load-bearing vocabulary either in the matrices above or here, per the PRD full-coverage mandate:

Chapters 1–2 (nation oracles): covered in §1.3 (Sovereignty), §1.6 (adjacent), §3 (three-transgressions idiom), §4 (proper-name transliteration). No further gaps beyond those recorded.
Chapter 3: covered in §1.6 (Divine Calling / Revelation adjacency), §2.4 (vision/revelation fencing). Reviewed; no additional new-vocabulary gaps beyond secret_counsel/vision already logged.
Chapter 4: covered in §1.6 (repentance refrain), §2.3 (God of Hosts doxology), §2.2 (cows of Bashan poverty-adjacent field — see native-speaker flag already logged in the glossary for the misogyny-avoidance note, reviewed here and found to require no further linguistic-gap action beyond that existing flag). No further gaps.
Chapter 5 (core passage 5:18-24, plus 5:1-17, 5:25-27): covered exhaustively in §1.1, §1.2, §1.4, §2.1, §2.5, §2.6, §3, §4. This is the chapter of highest lexical density and risk in the book.
Chapter 6: covered in §2.1 (Sovereign LORD self-oath), §1.6 (pride of Jacob / boasting intertext with baseline घमण्ड). Reviewed; no further new-vocabulary gaps — terminology reuses baseline घमण्ड and शांति-contrast fencing already established.
Chapter 7: covered in §1.6 (Divine Calling, Intercession/Providence adjacency), §2.4 (vision fencing), §4 (plumb line). No further gaps.
Chapter 8: covered in §1.1 (false balances / social justice continuation), §2.2 (poor/needy field), §3 (summer-fruit/end pun), §1.6 (famine of hearing the word — reviewed, reuses baseline Inspiration-of-Scripture fencing in reverse; no new-vocabulary gap beyond the existing glossary entry). No further gaps.
Chapter 9: covered exhaustively in §1.3 (Cushites/sovereignty), §1.5 (tent of David / restoration), §3 (raise-up verb, restore-the-fortunes idiom, virgin-Israel dirge callback), §4 (transliteration decisions for Edom/mankind crux). This is the second-highest-density chapter after chapter 5.

No chapter has been silently omitted; chapters 3, 6, 7 contribute comparatively fewer new lexical gaps beyond terms already fixed in earlier chapters or the baseline, and are explicitly noted as reviewed above rather than passed over.

6. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined doctrinal stakes and likelihood of translator drift, extending the baseline’s Critical/High/Medium/Low framework:

न्याय vs. धर्म at Amos 5:24 (Critical). The single most likely point in the entire curriculum for an instinctive Hindi rendering to reach for धर्म, given the “justice and righteousness” collocation’s surface resemblance to dharma-discourse. Absolute prohibition required; theologian review every occurrence of mishpat (5:7,15,24; 6:12).
यहोवा का दिन vs. शुभ/अशुभ दिन framing (Critical). Risk of an astrological-almanac (panchang) reading replacing the personal, moral, covenant-fixed Day of the LORD. Nine occurrences across the book; theologian review at every one.
פּen the raise-up-of-David’s-tent verb vs. पुनरुत्थान (Critical). Direct cross-curriculum collision with the baseline’s Critical resurrection_of_christ doctrine. A single lapse here would create a serious, teachable-moment-destroying confusion between David’s dynastic restoration and Christ’s unique bodily resurrection.
होमबलि/अन्नबलि/मेलबलि vs. बलि/यज्ञ at 5:21-23 (Critical/High). Getting this wrong inverts the entire Judgment-on-Empty-Ritual doctrine — either by assimilating God’s own instituted rites to generic appeasement-offering logic, or by implying blanket condemnation of ritual worship as such rather than ritual severed from justice.
“Are you not like the Cushites to me?” (9:7) — election vs. ethnic/caste superiority (Critical). The clearest single verse where a hereditary-status misreading (aligned with caste logic) would invert Amos’s own argument that covenant chosen-ness grounds greater accountability, not superior standing.
MT “Edom” vs. LXX “mankind” at 9:12 (Critical). A one-letter Hebrew textual crux with direct downstream consequences for any material connecting Amos 9 to Acts 15’s Gentile-inclusion argument; omitting the footnote would strand later curriculum modules.
यहोवा vs. परमेश्वर vs. प्रभु consistency (High, but pervasive — over 100 combined occurrences). Any inconsistency here erodes the covenant-name-specific force of the entire book, particularly the ch. 2 Israel-vs-nations argument.
“You only have I known” (3:2) — election as privilege vs. accountability (High). Same underlying risk as #5 but earlier and more implicit in the text; requires the same corrective framing.
दीन/कंगाल/दरिद्र and any karma-inflected poverty-as-desert reading (High). A subtle but pervasive risk across 2:6-8; 4:1; 5:12; 8:4-6 — the cumulative social-justice argument depends on poverty being read as the result of exploitation, not personal or karmic demerit.
“The LORD relented” (7:3,6) vs. ritual-appeasement expectation (High). Risk of readers assimilating Amos’s intercession narrative to a puja-style “correct ritual technique changes the deity’s mood” framework rather than sovereign, relational mercy responding to prayer.
दर्शन vs. प्रकाशन for Amos’s visions (High). Elevated above the baseline’s general revelation caution because Amos is structurally organized around five visions (7:1–9:4); a single early lapse into दर्शन would recolor the reader’s whole experience of the book’s visionary architecture.
“Three transgressions…and four” idiom (1:3 and 7 further occurrences) (High, translation-mechanics). Failure to attach the completeness-idiom note risks readers hunting for an exact sin-count across all eight oracles, distorting the rhetorical structure.
सेनाओं का परमेश्वर (God of Hosts) and a devas-and-armies pantheon reading (High). Recurs five times (4:13; 5:8-9,27; 6:14; 9:5-6) as a structural doxological refrain; consistent, unqualified rendering is required at every occurrence.
कर्मेल/कूशी/एदोम and other proper-name transliterations losing historical specificity (Medium). Lower doctrinal stakes than the above but affects the concreteness and historical realism the book’s oracles depend on.
קַיִץ/קֵץ untranslatable pun (8:1-2) (Medium, translation-mechanics only). No doctrinal collision, but omission of the explanatory note leaves readers puzzled by the vision’s rhetorical logic.

7. Summary

Amos activates several word-fields (justice/righteousness, sacrifice, divine names, poverty, vision/revelation, restoration) that are either entirely new to this curriculum (no baseline precedent) or carry substantially higher density and different doctrinal freight than their Romans/Galatians counterparts. The single highest-stakes new decision is fixing न्याय as mishpat’s rendering with an absolute prohibition on धर्म; the single highest-stakes reuse decision is the strict separation of restoration vocabulary (फिर से खड़ा करना) from resurrection vocabulary (पुनरुत्थान) at Amos 9:11. All decisions recorded here are already reflected in 08_core_glossary.md and assets/bible_term_registry.json, and must govern all Phase 2 segment translation for Amos without exception.

This document extends, and never contradicts, the baseline Romans/Galatians translation_memory.json and bible_term_registry.json. All new Amos-specific vocabulary decisions recorded here must be merged into a version-incremented translation_memory.json before Phase 2 translation begins. ===END FILE===

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.