2 Samuel — Full-Book Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

§0. Methodology Note

2 Samuel is Hebrew narrative and poetry, not Koine Greek. The PRD Step 1 instruction to “analyze the entire book in the original Koine Greek” is inherited boilerplate from the Romans (NT epistle) package; for this Old Testament curriculum the original language of analysis is Biblical Hebrew (with occasional note of the Septuagint/LXX Greek where it illuminates a term’s later NT-messianic trajectory, since Doctrine 5 — “The Messianic Hope Rooted in David’s Line” — depends on the LXX/NT reception of these terms). All other governing conventions from the Romans baseline are retained without modification:

• Destination script: RPA (Romanized Popular Alphabet, White Hmong/Hmong Daw).
• Register: Formal, reverent, literary Hmong, consistent with the existing Hmong Bible translation tradition (Vajtswv Txoj Lus / HWB), per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §5.
• TM enforcement: Every term already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json (Romans baseline) is reused verbatim wherever it recurs in 2 Samuel (e.g., Vajtswv, tus Tswv, txhaum / kev txhaum, txoj kev khuv leej, lus cog tseg, kev cawm dim / cawm, Vaj Ntsuj Plig, qhev, dawb huv, lub yeeb koob, kev ua siab ntev, kev cia siab, txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis). No alternate gloss is introduced for these.
• New terms surfaced in 2 Samuel with no Romans-baseline entry are analyzed fully below and proposed for TM-revision review, per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2 rule 4 and §9 escalation table.
• Proper names (David, Nathan, Bathsheba, etc.) are given provisional RPA transliterations following the established pattern in the baseline (Mauxes=Moses, Yudas=Judah, Yixalayees=Israel, Kilis=Greek, Povlauj=Paul). These are flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: proper-name transliteration, pending TM-revision] rather than treated as permanent, per §2 rule 4.

---

§1. Core Passage — 2 Samuel 7:1-17 (Verse-by-Verse)

2 Samuel 7:1

“Now when the king lived in his house (בַּיִת, bayit) and the LORD (יהוה, YHWH) had given him rest (נוּחַ, nuach, hiphil) from all his surrounding enemies…”

• בַּיִת / bayit — Lit. “house.” Semantic range: physical dwelling → household/family → royal dynasty/lineage → temple. This single root carries the entire chapter’s wordplay (David’s house of cedar / God’s house-tent / God’s promised house-dynasty for David / the future temple “house for my name,” v.13). English variants: house, home, household, dynasty, temple, palace. Theological meaning here: David’s settled, secure dwelling contrasts with God’s still-mobile tent, setting up the chapter’s central irony. Hmong rendering: lub tsev. Hmong tsev naturally carries the same double range (physical house ↔ household/family), so the core wordplay largely survives — but the dynasty sense (vv.11,16) and temple sense (v.13) must be disambiguated by co-text glosses, or a hearer will flatten every occurrence to “building.” Risk: High. New term — proposed permanent qualifier convention: lub tsev (cuab kwv tij / keeb kwm) when the dynastic sense is meant, lub tsev rau Vajtswv lub npe (v.13) when the temple sense is meant.
• יהוה / YHWH — The personal covenant name of God, distinct from generic Adonai/“lord.” Hebrew tradition and existing Hmong OT convention render this with the baseline lord entry’s rendering tus Tswv, but typographically distinguished (small-caps “TUS TSWV” or bolded) to signal the personal name, exactly parallel to English “LORD” vs. “Lord.” Theological meaning: the God who bound himself to Israel by name and covenant, not a generic deity title. Hmong rendering: tus TSWV (capitalized convention, extending baseline lord/tus Tswv, id inherited). Risk: Medium — comprehension-level; must never be confused with dab (spirit) vocabulary, and the capitalization convention must be taught explicitly since Hmong RPA has no native case-based distinction.
• נוּחַ / nuach (hiphil: “give rest”) — Lit. “to give rest/settle.” Semantic range: cessation from war, security, Sabbath-rest. Theological meaning: covenant blessing of peace following God’s promises being fulfilled (cf. peace/kev thaj yeeb baseline family). Hmong rendering: pub kom tau so (cause to have rest). Risk: Low. Comprehension-level only; no traditional-religion collision identified.

2 Samuel 7:2

“…the king said to Nathan the prophet (נָבִיא, nabi), ‘See now, I dwell in a house of cedar, but the ark of God (אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים, aron ha’elohim) dwells in a tent (יְרִיעָה/אֹהֶל, yeriah/ohel).’”

• נָבִיא / nabi (“prophet”) — Lit. “one who is called/announces.” Semantic range: authorized spokesman who receives and delivers God’s word, distinct from a diviner who manipulates unseen forces for hire. English variants: prophet, seer. Theological meaning: Nathan is God’s authorized messenger — the very channel through whom the covenant in this chapter is both wrongly affirmed (v.3) and rightly corrected (v.4-17), modeling that even a godly prophet must submit personal opinion to the received word of God. Hmong rendering: tus cev Vajtswv Lo Lus (one who carries/relays God’s word). Risk: High. New term — the closest existing Hmong social role that “speaks for the spirit world” is the txiv neeb (shaman/spirit-medium), who enters trance to negotiate with spirits on a client’s behalf. A biblical prophet does not negotiate with or manipulate God, but receives and transmits an already-given, authoritative word; without explicit contrast-teaching, nabi risks being assimilated into the shamanic mediator role. Must never be rendered with txiv neeb vocabulary.
• אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים / aron ha’elohim (“ark of God”) — Lit. “chest/box of God.” Semantic range: the gold-covered wooden chest containing the tablets of the covenant, God’s earthly throne-footstool and locus of his manifest presence. Theological meaning: the ark is not an idol but the sign of God’s covenant presence with Israel; its contrast with David’s cedar house drives Nathan’s initial (uncorrected) enthusiasm for a temple. Hmong rendering: Lub Phij Xab Cog Lus (ntawm Vajtswv) (“the covenant chest of God”). Risk: Critical. New term — direct collision risk with Hmong ancestral/spirit-altar objects (thaj, spirit tablets, household spirit-shrines) that are themselves treated as loci of ancestral/spirit presence and given ritual offerings. Must be taught explicitly as a sign object of the historical, once-given Mosaic covenant — never an object of independent veneration, offering, or ritual manipulation, and never called dab mlom (idol) or treated with fij-type appeasement offerings.
• אֹהֶל / ohel (“tent”) — Lit. “tent.” Semantic range: the tabernacle, God’s mobile pre-temple dwelling. Theological meaning: signals the provisional, journeying nature of God’s dwelling among his people prior to the settled temple era. Hmong rendering: tsev ntaub (cloth-house/tent). Risk: Low. Comprehension-level only.

2 Samuel 7:3

“And Nathan said to the king, ‘Go, do all that is in your heart (לֵב, lev), for the LORD is with you.’”

• לֵב / lev (“heart”) — Lit. “heart,” but in Hebrew anthropology the seat of will, intention, and reasoning (broader than the Western emotional “heart”). English variants: heart, mind, intention. Theological meaning: Nathan initially affirms David’s intention on his own authority, before receiving God’s corrective word overnight (v.4) — illustrating that good intentions require confirmation by God’s revealed word, not mere prophetic sentiment. Hmong rendering: lub siab (the culturally standard seat of will/intention/emotion, already used throughout the Romans baseline, e.g. Vajtswv lub siab nyiam for the will of God). Risk: Low. Stable, already-established idiom; no collision.

2 Samuel 7:4-5

“But that same night the word of the LORD (דְּבַר־יהוה, devar YHWH) came to Nathan, ‘Go and tell my servant (עֶבֶד, ebed) David…’”

• דְּבַר־יהוה / devar YHWH (“word of the LORD”) — Lit. “word of YHWH.” Semantic range: God’s authoritative, self-disclosing speech to a prophet, which corrects and overrides even a godly human opinion (contrast v.3). Theological meaning: establishes that everything that follows (vv.5-16) is not Nathan’s counsel but a direct divine oracle — the very mode by which the Davidic covenant is given. Hmong rendering: Vajtswv Lo Lus, extending the baseline Scripture/Vaj Lug Kub semantic family but referring here to a specific spoken oracle rather than the written canon; render as Vajtswv tej lus for the spoken-oracle sense to avoid conflating it with the fixed canonical-writings term. Risk: Medium. Comprehension-level distinction between spoken oracle and written Scripture; no traditional-religion collision.
• עֶבֶד / ebed (“servant” — “my servant David”) — Lit. “servant/slave.” Semantic range: from literal chattel slave to an honored royal title of total devotion and belonging to a sovereign master (as here and throughout the OT for Moses, David, the Servant of Isaiah). This is the Hebrew semantic parallel to the NT δοῦλος already fixed in the Romans baseline. Theological meaning: “my servant David” is a covenant-relational honorific marking David as God’s chosen, wholly-owned instrument — not a term of degradation. Hmong rendering: REUSE baseline qhev (id: servant_slave_doulos), exactly as fixed in the TM. Risk: High (inherited from baseline). Must carry the same catechetical note distinguishing honored, voluntary covenant-bondservice from literal chattel slavery, which is doubly important here because David is a king, not a social inferior — reinforcing that the title is honorific, not demeaning.

2 Samuel 7:6-7

“I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel… In all places where I have moved with all the people of Israel, did I speak a word with any of the judges (שֹׁפְטִים, shophetim) of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd (רָעָה, ra’ah) my people Israel…”

• שֹׁפְטִים / shophetim (“judges”) — Lit. “those who judge/govern.” Refers to the pre-monarchic tribal leaders of the Judges period. Theological meaning: contrasts the informal, occasional leadership of the Judges era with the permanent, God-established dynasty about to be promised to David. Hmong rendering: cov thawj coj (lub sijhawm cov Thawj Tu Plaub) — “the leaders (of the era of the Judges).” Risk: Low. Comprehension-level; historical referent only.
• רָעָה / ra’ah (“shepherd”) — Lit. “to pasture/tend flocks.” Semantic range: literal shepherding → royal/pastoral leadership metaphor (a king “shepherds” his people). English variants: shepherd, feed, tend, rule. Theological meaning: frames kingship as loving, protective care rather than mere domination — a category that will climax messianically in the NT’s Good Shepherd. Hmong rendering: yug thiab saib xyuas (raise/tend and watch over), echoing the concrete Hmong pastoral/agrarian image. Risk: Low-Medium. Positive cultural bridge (Hmong highland communities are familiar with herding); no collision, but should be flagged for reinforcement when later connected to messianic “Shepherd-King” typology (Doctrine 5).

2 Samuel 7:8-9

“Thus says the LORD of hosts (יהוה צְבָאוֹת, YHWH tzevaot)… I took you from the pasture (נָוֶה, naveh)… that you should be prince (נָגִיד, nagid) over my people Israel. …I will make for you a great name (שֵׁם גָּדוֹל, shem gadol)…”

• יהוה צְבָאוֹת / YHWH tzevaot (“LORD of hosts”) — Lit. “YHWH of armies.” Semantic range: God as commander of the heavenly (angelic) and/or earthly (Israel’s) armies; a title of sovereign military and cosmic supremacy. Theological meaning: underscores that the covenant about to be granted comes from the God who commands every power, not from David’s own military success. Hmong rendering: tus TSWV uas kav tag nrho tej tub rog (saum ntuj ceeb tsheej) — “the LORD who commands all the armies (of heaven).” Risk: Medium. New compound title — must avoid any phrase suggesting God is merely a more powerful txiv neeb-type spirit-commander; requires explicit teaching that this is unique, personal, covenantal sovereignty, not competitive supernatural power (cf. baseline power/hwjchim caution).
• נָגִיד / nagid (“prince/ruler-designate”) — Lit. “one who is out front, a designated leader.” Distinct from melek (king, reigning monarch) — nagid marks divine appointment/designation to future or present rule. Theological meaning: emphasizes that David’s rule originates entirely in God’s choice, not self-assertion or dynastic right by birth — tying directly to Doctrine 1 (the covenant is God-initiated) and to the baseline election_choose framework. Hmong rendering: tus uas raug Vajtswv tsa ua thawj coj (“the one whom God has appointed as leader”). Risk: Medium. Comprehension-gap term; should be taught alongside the baseline election_choose entry’s caution against hmoov (fate) vocabulary — David’s designation is God’s personal choice, never impersonal fortune.
• שֵׁם / shem (“name,” “a great name”) — Lit. “name.” Semantic range: identity, reputation, renown, legacy — echoing the Abrahamic covenant promise (“I will make your name great,” Gen 12:2). Theological meaning: links the Davidic covenant typologically to the Abrahamic covenant, both being unilateral divine grants of blessing, not achievements. Hmong rendering: lub npe (loj) — “a (great) name.” Risk: Low. Stable; no collision, though the “great name” theme should be taught alongside promise/lus cog tseg (already baseline) to preserve the covenant-typology link.

2 Samuel 7:10-11

“And I will appoint a place… and will plant them (נָטַע, nata)… violent men (בְּנֵי עַוְלָה, bene avlah, lit. “sons of injustice”) shall afflict (עַנּוֹת, anoth) them no more… the LORD will make you a house (בַּיִת, bayit).”

• נָטַע / nata (“plant”) — Lit. “to plant (a tree/vine).” Semantic range: agricultural planting → settled, secure national existence. Theological meaning: God’s covenant promise of Israel’s secure, permanent possession of the land, an agrarian metaphor highly accessible to a Hmong highland farming audience. Hmong rendering: cog (kom nyob ruaj) — “to plant (so as to dwell securely).” Risk: Low. Positive cross-cultural bridge; no collision.
• בַּיִת / bayit (recurrence, pivotal — “the LORD will make YOU a house”) — This is the chapter’s structural turning point: David wanted to build God a house (temple); God instead promises to build David a house (dynasty). See full treatment at v.1 above. Risk: High (as above) — this specific occurrence is the doctrinally load-bearing pivot for Doctrine 1 and must be rendered with an explicit dynastic-sense gloss (lub tsev — koj cuab kwv tij thiab koj cov xeeb ntxwv / “your house — your family line and descendants”) so the wordplay’s reversal is not lost.

2 Samuel 7:12-13

”…I will raise up your offspring/seed (זֶרַע, zera) after you… and I will establish (הֵקִים, heqim) his kingdom (מַמְלָכָה, mamlakah). He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne (כִּסֵּא, kisse) of his kingdom forever (עַד־עוֹלָם, ad olam).”

• זֶרַע / zera (“seed/offspring”) — Lit. “seed.” Semantic range: literal biological offspring → an entire dynastic lineage → (in later canonical and NT reading) the singular messianic descendant (cf. Gal 3:16’s use of the parallel Abrahamic “seed”). Theological meaning: the near referent is Solomon, but the “forever” qualifier (v.13,16) opens the term to an ultimate, singular fulfillment — the exegetical seedbed of Doctrine 5’s messianic hope. Hmong rendering: tus xeeb ntxwv (descendant/offspring), consistent with the baseline heir/tus qub txeeg qub teg semantic family though not identical — zera here emphasizes descent, heir emphasizes inheritance-right; both should be taught together. Risk: Medium. Must be taught with explicit near/far (Solomon/Messiah) double fulfillment, or hearers will resolve the promise entirely into Solomon and miss the Messianic Hope trajectory.
• מַמְלָכָה / mamlakah (“kingdom”) — Lit. “kingdom, royal dominion.” Semantic range: the political state ruled by a king → (by extension) any realm under a sovereign’s rule, including God’s own reign. Theological meaning: distinct from, but typologically anticipatory of, the baseline NT term kingdom_of_god (lub Nceeg Vaj ntawm Vajtswv). Here it is David’s dynastic, historical-political kingdom over Israel, which Scripture’s storyline shows is the earthly shadow of the eternal, spiritual reign later called “the Kingdom of God” and fulfilled in Christ. Hmong rendering: lub nceeg vaj (kingdom/royal reign), with contextual qualifier — ntawm Yixalayees (“of Israel”) to distinguish this specific historical referent from the baseline’s lub Nceeg Vaj ntawm Vajtswv. Risk: Critical. This term carries the single most culturally dangerous collision in the entire book: Hmong folk religious-political history contains a strong, recurring messianic-king expectation (the Huab Tais / “true king” myth, historically invoked in Hmong millenarian and resistance movements) anticipating a literal ethnic-Hmong king who will establish a earthly, national Hmong kingdom and reverse Hmong political subjugation. Without careful, explicit teaching, “the eternal kingdom promised to David’s line” risks being heard through this pre-existing Huab Tais expectation — an ethnic-nationalist, this-worldly political liberation narrative — rather than Scripture’s own trajectory toward Christ’s spiritual, global, and truly eternal reign (cf. Doctrine 5; Luke 1:32-33; John 18:36). This risk must be flagged for mandatory human theologian review at every occurrence of “eternal kingdom,” “throne of David,” and “anointed king” language.
• כִּסֵּא / kisse (“throne”) — Lit. “seat/chair (of authority).” Semantic range: literal royal seat → symbol of ruling authority and legitimacy. Theological meaning: the throne, not merely the dynasty, is guaranteed permanence — the concrete symbol of unbroken Davidic rule that the NT explicitly applies to Christ (Luke 1:32-33). Hmong rendering: lub zwm txwv (royal throne — the standard existing Hmong term for a king’s seat). Risk: High. Inherits the same Huab Tais collision risk as mamlakah above; “the throne of David” must always be taught with explicit reference to its ultimate fulfillment in Christ’s spiritual reign, never left as an unqualified promise of a restored earthly Israelite (or by cultural transference, Hmong) political throne.
• עַד־עוֹלָם / ad olam (“forever”) — Lit. “unto perpetuity/the hidden horizon of time.” Semantic range: a very long time → without end → eternal. Theological meaning: the qualifier that transforms a normal dynastic promise into the basis for the doctrine of an eternal throne; its repetition (vv.13, 16) is deliberate emphasis. Hmong rendering: REUSE baseline idiom family mus ib txhis (as in txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis, eternal life) → here mus ib txhis applied to throne/kingdom. Risk: Low-Medium. Stable existing idiom; risk is purely in ensuring hearers do not domesticate “forever” into “a very long dynasty” (which is how ancient Near Eastern royal ideology typically used comparable language) rather than a literally unending, Christ-fulfilled reign.

2 Samuel 7:14

“I will be to him a father (אָב, av), and he shall be to me a son (בֵּן, ben). When he commits iniquity (עָוֹן, avon), I will discipline (יִסַּרְתִּיו, from yasar) him with the rod of men…”

• אָב / av … בֵּן / ben (“father / son”) — Lit. “father / son.” Semantic range: this is covenantal adoption-language applied first to Solomon (2 Sam 7:14; cf. Ps 2:7, applied to David’s line and ultimately Christ) — not natural begetting, but a legal/relational designation of unique favor and inheritance. Theological meaning: directly anticipates the baseline NT terms father_god (Leej Txiv), son_of_god (Leej Tub ntawm Vajtswv), and adoption_as_sons (raug muab coj los ua me tub) — this verse is the OT root of that entire theological family. Hmong rendering: REUSE baseline Leej Txiv for the father-role and the adoption_as_sons phrase-family for the son-designation, adapted: Vajtswv yuav ua leej txiv rau nws, thiab nws yuav ua leej tub rau Vajtswv. Risk: Medium. Must be explicitly distinguished from Leej Tub ntawm Vajtswv (the baseline’s Critical/Low-risk title reserved for Christ’s unique eternal Sonship) — Solomon’s/David’s-heir’s sonship here is a real but derivative, covenantal sonship, not deity; conflating the two would either inflate Solomon or (worse) diminish Christ’s unique Sonship. Requires a clear teaching note bridging OT adoptive sonship to its NT fulfillment.
• עָוֹן / avon (“iniquity”) — Lit. “guilt, moral crookedness, twisted-ness.” Semantic range: overlaps with, and is here rendered consistently with, the baseline sin_act_and_condition (txhaum / kev txhaum). Theological meaning: the covenant anticipates and provides for the future king’s moral failure — a remarkable feature that directly undergirds Doctrine 3 (Consequences of Sin within the Covenant Family) and previews David’s own sin in ch.11-12. Hmong rendering: REUSE baseline txhaum / kev txhaum. Risk: High (inherited).
• יָסַר / yasar (“discipline/chasten”) — Lit. “to correct, instruct through correction,” often via punishment. Semantic range: distinct from destructive punishment/rejection — disciplinary correction within an unbroken relationship. Theological meaning: this is the crucial term distinguishing Doctrine 3 (real, painful consequences) from a rejection of the covenant itself (contrast with what happened to Saul, explicitly named in the next verse) — discipline, not termination. Hmong rendering: qhuab qhia thiab rau txim (instruct/correct and discipline) — new term. Risk: High. New term — must be carefully distinguished from Hmong traditional-religion patterns of ancestral/spirit punishment for ritual transgression (which typically signal broken relationship requiring ritual repair) by teaching that divine discipline here operates within an unbreakable covenant bond (v.15 immediately following), not a threat of relational severance.

2 Samuel 7:15

“but my steadfast love (חֶסֶד, chesed) will not depart (סוּר, sur) from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.”

• חֶסֶד / chesed (“steadfast love / lovingkindness / mercy”) — Lit. “loyal love, covenant faithfulness-in-action.” Semantic range: this is one of the OT’s richest theological terms — combining loyalty, mercy, faithfulness, and love, specifically within a covenant relationship, and specifically maintained by the superior party even when the other party fails. English variants: steadfast love, lovingkindness, mercy, faithful love, grace (loosely). Theological meaning: this is the doctrinal hinge of the entire chapter and of Doctrine 4 (God’s Steadfast Love despite Human Failure) — God’s chesed toward David’s line is explicitly guaranteed to be unconditional and irrevocable, contrasted with the conditional kingship God gave and then removed from Saul (1 Sam 15). Hmong rendering proposal (NEW term): txoj kev hlub ruaj khov (raws li tej lus cog tseg) — “steadfast/unwavering love (according to the covenant promise).” Risk: Critical. Chesed must be kept lexically distinct from BOTH baseline entries it borders: (1) grace/txiaj ntsim (unmerited favor toward the guilty, a legal/relational category) and (2) mercy/txoj kev khuv leej (compassion toward the miserable, an emotional/relational category) — chesed uniquely adds the dimension of covenant loyalty maintained despite the other party’s unfaithfulness, which has no single existing Hmong Christian term. The specific collision risk is that the nearest cultural analogue — Hmong clan loyalty obligation (mutual aid and loyalty owed reciprocally among kwv tij/clan members) — is fundamentally reciprocal and conditional (loyalty is owed back, and can be forfeited by clan betrayal), whereas God’s chesed toward David’s line is explicitly unilateral and unconditional (maintained even through David’s and his descendants’ unfaithfulness). If rendered with unmarked clan-loyalty vocabulary, this doctrine could be heard as “God will keep being loyal because David’s line keeps its obligations to him” — precisely the opposite of the text’s point. Requires mandatory human theologian review and a dedicated teaching note at every occurrence.
• סוּר / sur (“depart/turn aside”) — Lit. “to turn aside, remove.” Theological meaning: the negated verb (“will NOT depart”) is the operative promise — permanence of chesed despite the disciplinary rod of v.14. Hmong rendering: yuav tsis ncaim (will not leave/depart). Risk: Low. Stable; supports rather than complicates the Critical chesed term above.

2 Samuel 7:16

“And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure (נֶאְמָן, ne’eman) forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.”

• נֶאְמָן / ne’eman (“made sure/established/faithful”) — Lit. “firm, faithful, trustworthy” (from the same root as amen). Semantic range: reliability, permanence, trustworthiness. Theological meaning: the covenant’s certainty rests not on David’s or his descendants’ faithfulness but on God’s own faithful character — the term used elsewhere for God’s own trustworthy nature is here applied to the promise itself. Hmong rendering: ruaj khov, ntseeg tau (“firm, trustworthy”). Risk: Low-Medium. Comprehension-level; should be reinforced alongside the Critical chesed (v.15) and mamlakah/kisse (v.13) entries as part of the single unified promise, not treated as a separate minor term.

2 Samuel 7:17

“In accordance with all these words (דְּבָרִים, devarim) and all this vision (חִזָּיוֹן, chizzayon), Nathan spoke to David.”

• חִזָּיוֹן / chizzayon (“vision”) — Lit. “vision, that which is seen.” Semantic range: a category of prophetic revelation distinct from ordinary “word” (v.4), used here to seal the divine authority of the whole oracle. Hmong rendering: zaj yog toog (a revelatory vision/dream). Risk: Low. Comprehension-level; consistent with the general prophetic-revelation vocabulary already established for nabi (v.2), no new collision. Not to be confused with the shamanic ua neeb trance-vision category (see ch.6 note on dancing/ecstatic worship) — should carry the same disambiguating caution as nabi.

---

§2. Chapter-by-Chapter Full-Book Coverage

Every chapter of 2 Samuel (1–24) is reviewed below. Chapters contributing new load-bearing theological vocabulary receive full term treatment; chapters reusing only already-logged vocabulary state this explicitly per the full-book-coverage mandate.

Chapter 1 — Saul and Jonathan’s death; David’s lament

• מְשִׁיחַ יהוה / mashiach YHWH (“the LORD’s anointed”) — Lit. “the smeared/anointed one of YHWH.” Semantic range: a king or priest set apart for office by ritual anointing with oil; by the time of the NT this same root (Greek christos) becomes the fixed title of Jesus. Theological meaning: even Saul, a failed king, retained a sacred, God-conferred status that made violence against him (real or claimed, 1:14-16) a serious offense — establishing “the anointed of the LORD” as a category of God-given, not self-asserted, authority; this is the term-family that will climax in the “Messianic Hope” doctrine. Hmong rendering (NEW term): tus uas raug Vajtswv tsa thiab pleev roj (“the one whom God has appointed and anointed with oil”). Risk: Critical. As with mamlakah/kisse in the core passage, this title-family risks assimilation into the Hmong Huab Tais folk-messianic expectation of a coming national deliverer-king; additionally, in 2 Sam 1 the term is applied to Saul, a rejected king, which must be taught carefully so hearers do not conclude that “the LORD’s anointed” guarantees personal righteousness or perpetual favor — only David’s line (ch.7) receives the unconditional promise.
• קִינָה / qinah (“lament/dirge”) — Lit. “a funeral dirge,” a specific poetic genre. Theological meaning: models godly grief that honors even a flawed predecessor and a covenant friend, without triumphalism over a fallen rival. Hmong rendering: zaj nkauj quaj ntsuag (a mourning/lament song). Risk: Low. Hmong funeral lament traditions provide a strong, positive comprehension bridge; no collision, though care should be taken that this is presented as grief, not ancestral-spirit propitiation ritual.

Chapter 2 — David anointed king over Judah; civil war begins

No new load-bearing theological terms beyond the anointing vocabulary already logged in ch.1 (mashiach/anointing) and the bayit (“house of Saul” vs. beginning of “house of David”) family logged in the core passage. Reviewed; king (melek) and anoint (verb mashach) are reused consistently with ch.1’s tus uas raug Vajtswv tsa thiab pleev roj term family.

Chapter 3 — Abner’s shift of allegiance; covenant with David; Abner’s murder

• בְּרִית / berith (“covenant”) — Lit. “a binding agreement, treaty, pact,” often sealed by a formal ceremony/oath. Semantic range: ranges from ordinary political/personal treaties between equals (as here, 3:12-13, David and Abner) to God’s unilateral covenants with Abraham, Israel, and David. This is the KEY term underlying “the Davidic Covenant” as a theological label, even though the word itself does not appear in the core passage (2 Sam 7:1-17) — it is supplied by later texts (2 Sam 23:5; Ps 89:3, 28, 34). Theological meaning: establishing this term’s political/human sense here in ch.3 sets up its climactic theological sense in ch.23. Hmong rendering (NEW term): kev cog lus (nrog kev cog tseg ua pov thawj) — “a covenant-making (with a sealing oath/pledge),” distinct from the baseline promise/lus cog tseg (which denotes the content pledged) by additionally denoting the formal, binding relational act of covenant-making itself. Risk: Medium. Comprehension-gap primarily; the political-treaty sense here (David/Abner) carries low doctrinal risk, but must be kept terminologically identical to the term used in ch.23 for God’s covenant with David, so that hearers can trace the throughline from a human political device to God’s own unbreakable, unilateral commitment.

Chapter 4 — Ish-bosheth’s murder

No new load-bearing theological terms. Reused: bayit (house of Saul, continuing collapse), general “murder/kill” vocabulary (see ch.11 for full treatment of killing/bloodguilt terminology). Reviewed.

Chapter 5 — David king over all Israel; capture of Jerusalem/Zion

• בְּרִית / berith — Reused (5:3, elders of Israel covenant with David at Hebron); same term and rendering as ch.3, reinforcing the political-covenant sense before ch.7’s theological escalation and ch.23’s climax.
• צִיּוֹן / Tsiyon (“Zion”) and יְרוּשָׁלַיִם / Yerushalayim (“Jerusalem”) — Proper names/place terms. Theological meaning: Zion becomes the fixed geographic and theological center of the Davidic promise — “the city of David” — and later Scripture (esp. Psalms, and NT Revelation) uses “Zion” as shorthand for the whole messianic hope. Hmong rendering: Xi-oos (Zion), Yeluxalees (Jerusalem) — provisional transliterations [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: proper-name transliteration]. Risk: Low-Medium. Comprehension-level; no traditional-religion collision, but “Zion” carries enough theological freight (Doctrine 5) to warrant a first-use footnote per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §6.

Chapter 6 — The ark brought to Jerusalem; Uzzah’s death; David’s dance

• אֲרוֹן / aron (“ark”) — Reused from core passage (7:2); full Critical-risk treatment there applies throughout this chapter with added force, since Uzzah’s death (6:6-7) for improperly touching the ark vividly illustrates the ark’s genuine, dangerous holiness — a feature that must be taught carefully alongside the “no independent veneration” caution, so hearers do not read this as evidence the ark itself possesses autonomous spirit-power (a shamanic-object framework) rather than being the meeting-place of the true God’s own holiness.
• רָקַד / raqad (“leap/dance”) — Lit. “to dance, leap about.” Semantic range: here, uninhibited public worship-dance before the LORD (6:14,16). Theological meaning: models exuberant, humble worship devoted entirely to God, contrasted with royal dignity (Michal’s scorn, 6:20-22). Hmong rendering (NEW term): seev cev pehawm tus TSWV (“dance in worship of the LORD”) — deliberately co-textualized with the baseline worship_serve_cultic entry’s mandatory object-anchoring rule (pehawm + object). Risk: High. New term — Hmong traditional religion includes ecstatic ritual dance performed by the txiv neeb while in trance to communicate with and negotiate with spirits (ua neeb); David’s worship-dance, while joyful and physically similar in form, must be explicitly taught as praise directed to God, not a trance-state or spirit-communication technique, to prevent the two being merged in the hearer’s mind.

Chapter 7:1-17 — CORE PASSAGE (see §1 above for full verse-by-verse treatment)

Chapter 7:18-29 — David’s prayer of response

• מִי אָנֹכִי / mi anokhi (“who am I?”) — An idiom of astonished humility before unmerited favor. Theological meaning: David’s own response models the correct posture toward God’s chesed-covenant (v.15’s term) — receiving, not presuming upon, an unearned promise; this functions as the OT root of the NT ungodly/tus tsis hwm Vajtswv unworthiness-motif (baseline Grace doctrine). Hmong rendering: Kuv yog leej twg…? (rhetorical humility formula). Risk: Low. Stable idiom; reinforces rather than complicates the Critical chesed term already logged.
• דָּבָר / davar (“word”) — Reused from v.4’s devar YHWH; here David repeatedly appeals to “your word” (7:21, 7:25, 7:28-29) as the sole ground of confidence. Risk: Low (reused).

Chapter 8 — David’s victories and administration; dedicated spoils

• קָדַשׁ / qadash (“dedicate/consecrate”) — Lit. “to set apart as holy.” Semantic range: shares its root with the baseline sanctification/dawb huv family. Theological meaning: the tribute-silver and gold David “dedicates to the LORD” (8:11) models offering the fruit of victory back to God rather than personal accumulation — a devotional, not atoning, dedication. Hmong rendering: muab fij/cai rau Vajtswv, ua kom dawb huv rau Vajtswv — “set apart/dedicated to the LORD, made holy for the LORD.” Risk: Medium. Reuses the flagged fij vocabulary (per baseline caution on living_sacrifice); must be marked here as an act of devotional dedication of spoils, not a sacrificial atonement act nor a shamanic votive offering to spirits — should follow the same disambiguation discipline already required for khoom fij uas muaj txoj sia nyob in the Romans baseline.

Chapter 9 — David’s kindness (chesed) to Mephibosheth

• חֶסֶד / chesed — Directly reused and narratively illustrated: “Is there still anyone left of the house of Saul that I may show the kindness (chesed) of God to him?” (9:3). This chapter is the single best narrative illustration in the whole book of the Critical chesed term defined at 7:15 — unearned, covenant-rooted loyalty-love shown to someone (Mephibosheth) who could offer nothing in return and belonged to a now-displaced rival house. Risk: Critical (reused, reinforced) — this chapter should be flagged as a primary teaching passage for disambiguating chesed from reciprocal Hmong clan-loyalty obligation, since Mephibosheth is emphatically not in a position to reciprocate (9:3,8, “a dead dog”), unlike ordinary clan mutual-aid relationships.

Chapter 10 — War with Ammon and the Syrian coalition

No new load-bearing theological terms; military/political vocabulary only, reusing general war/enemy terms already implicit in 7:1 (“rest from enemies”). Reviewed.

Chapter 11 — David and Bathsheba; murder of Uriah

• נָאַף / na’aph (“commit adultery”) — Lit. “to commit adultery.” Semantic range: sexual union with another man’s wife, a covenant/legal violation distinct from Hmong customary polygamy (which permits multiple wives but does not permit violating another man’s existing marriage). Theological meaning: the concrete act that initiates the entire Doctrine 2/3 arc (David’s Sin and Repentance; Consequences of Sin within the Covenant Family). Hmong rendering (NEW term): kev deev luag poj luag txiv (“committing adultery with another’s wife/husband”) — an existing descriptive Hmong phrase for this specific wrong. Risk: Medium. Comprehension-level rather than collision-level: Hmong customary law recognizes adultery with another man’s wife as a genuine wrong (distinct from permitted polygamous marriage), so the moral category transfers, but teaching should clarify that David’s sin is aggravated by his royal power imbalance over Bathsheba and Uriah, a dimension not automatically foregrounded by the bare term.
• הָרַג / harag (“kill/murder”) — Lit. “to kill.” Semantic range: David’s engineered killing of Uriah (11:15-17) is calculated murder-by-proxy, not battlefield death. Hmong rendering: kev tua neeg (npaj tseg) (“premeditated killing/murder”). Risk: Medium. Comprehension-level; should be explicitly distinguished from legitimate battlefield death to preserve the moral weight of the narrative.

Chapter 12 — Nathan’s parable; David’s confession and repentance

• חָטָאתִי לַיהוה / chatati la-YHWH (“I have sinned against the LORD”) — Direct confession using the verb chata (to sin/miss the mark), cognate with the baseline sin_act_and_condition term family. Theological meaning: this is the pivotal confession-moment of the whole book, and the primary textual anchor for Doctrine 2 (David’s Sin and Repentance). Note that Hebrew has no single abstract noun for “repentance” in this passage — repentance here is enacted through direct confession (chatati, “I have sinned”) plus later behavioral turning (fasting, prayer, 12:16), not a single lexeme. Hmong rendering (NEW compound term): kev lees paub txhaum thiab tig hlo rov qab rau Vajtswv (“confessing sin and turning back decisively to God”) — proposed as the fixed Hmong rendering for “repentance” throughout this curriculum. Risk: High. New term — Hmong customary wrongdoing-response strongly favors ritual/social restitution (offering compensation, ritual apology to the offended party or spirits, restoring social harmony) rather than an internal, God-ward reorientation of the heart with no possibility of self-administered ritual repair. Without explicit teaching, David’s repentance risks being understood as “David performed the correct apology ritual and so the matter was settled,” rather than “David’s heart turned back to God, who alone forgives” (see next entry). Directly parallels the existing baseline caution on sin_act_and_condition.
• נָשָׂא / nasa (“carry away/forgive”) — Lit. “to lift, carry, bear away.” Semantic range: here, Nathan’s declaration “the LORD has taken away (nasa) your sin” (12:13) — a genuine forgiveness-word with no accompanying ritual act by David. NOTE: this concept has no dedicated entry anywhere in the Romans-baseline TM — “forgive/forgiveness” is a significant gap surfaced by full-book coverage. Hmong rendering (NEW term, proposed for TM-revision): zam txim (the standard existing Hmong Christian term for “forgive sin”). Risk: High. Must be taught as God’s own sovereign, gracious act (paralleling the Critical grace/txiaj ntsim baseline entry) — never as the automatic result of a completed social-ritual apology sequence, and never conflated with the baseline propitiation_atoning_sacrifice entry (which is Christ’s unique once-for-all atoning basis) — this term denotes the application of forgiveness to a particular sinner, not the ground on which forgiveness is possible.
• Consequence language (12:10-14) — “the sword shall never depart from your house,” the death of the child — thematic, not single-lexeme, but doctrinally central to Doctrine 3. Hmong rendering: descriptive phrasing, e.g. Rab ntaj yuav tsis ncaim koj tsev neeg mus li (“the sword will not depart from your house forever”), deliberately reusing the bayit/tsev (house/dynasty) term already established, to keep visible that the consequence falls specifically within the covenant family, not merely on David as an individual. Risk: Medium. Must be taught alongside Doctrine 4 (God’s steadfast love, ch.7:15/ch.9) so consequence and unbroken covenant love are held together, not read as contradictory.

Chapter 13 — Amnon’s assault on Tamar; family breakdown

• עִנָּה (piel) / ‘anah (“to violate/humiliate/force”) — Lit. “to afflict, oppress,” piel stem here denoting sexual assault. Theological meaning: the first devastating “sword” consequence (12:10) materializing within David’s own household — a direct, grim outworking of Doctrine 3. Hmong rendering (NEW term): kev quab yuam ua txhaum kev sib deev (“forced/coerced sexual violation”). Risk: High. Sensitive term requiring careful, dignified register; must not be minimized as a family “dispute” nor treated with the reparable-social-fault framing the baseline already cautions against for sin_act_and_condition — this is a serious sin with lasting, God-ward and victim-centered weight, and pastoral care in presentation is essential.

Chapter 14 — The wise woman of Tekoa; Absalom’s return

No major new theological term; reuses reconciliation (kev sib haum xeeb, baseline) and mercy vocabulary. One minor comprehension-level note:

• גֹּאֵל הַדָּם / go’el ha-dam (“avenger of blood”) — Lit. “redeemer/kinsman of blood,” the customary near-kinsman obligated to avenge a slain relative. Hmong rendering: tus kwv tij uas yuav tsum pauj taus ntshav (“the kinsman obligated to avenge blood”). Risk: Medium. Resonates positively with Hmong clan-based obligation customs, but must be explicitly distinguished from the baseline redemption/kev txhiv (Christ’s atoning price-payment) so this ordinary legal-kinship institution is never confused with the gospel redemption term. Chapter otherwise reviewed as reusing prior vocabulary.

Chapter 15 — Absalom’s conspiracy and rebellion

• קֶשֶׁר / qesher (“conspiracy”) / מָרַד / marad (“rebel”) — Lit. “a binding-together (against)” / “to revolt.” Theological meaning: the political and filial rebellion against David is itself a further outworking of Doctrine 3 (consequences within the covenant family) and dramatically illustrates that God’s unconditional chesed-promise to David’s dynasty (ch.7) does not exempt individual family members from the real consequences of sin and strife. Hmong rendering (NEW term): kev tuam tsov ntxeev, kev fav xeeb (“conspiracy and rebellion”). Risk: Medium. Political/comprehension-level primarily; should be taught alongside Doctrine 3 rather than treated as an isolated political narrative.

Chapter 16 — Shimei’s curse; Ahithophel’s counsel

No new load-bearing theological term. David’s response (“let him curse… perhaps the LORD will look on my affliction,” 16:11-12) reuses the baseline endurance/kev ua siab ntev term family under real persecution. Reviewed.

Chapter 17 — Ahithophel and Hushai’s counsel; Ahithophel’s suicide

No new load-bearing theological term; purely narrative/political chapter. Reviewed.

Chapter 18 — Absalom’s death; David’s grief

• קִינָה / qinah-type lament reused (“O Absalom, my son, my son!” 18:33), same term family as ch.1. Risk: Low (reused) — illustrates that even consequence-bearing grief (Doctrine 3) does not cancel a father’s chesed-shaped love, reinforcing rather than contradicting Doctrine 4.

Chapter 19 — David’s return; reconciliations

Reuses chesed/mercy vocabulary (Barzillai, Shimei, Mephibosheth reconciliations) and the newly-logged zam txim (forgive) term from ch.12. No wholly new theological term. Reviewed.

Chapter 20 — Sheba’s revolt; the wise woman of Abel

• חָכְמָה / chokmah (“wisdom”) — Lit. “wisdom, skill.” Hmong rendering: REUSE existing Hmong word already present in the baseline merism entry cov txawj ntse (“the wise”) → kev txawj ntse for the noun “wisdom.” Risk: Low. Stable, reused vocabulary; no collision.

Chapter 21 — Famine and the Gibeonites; atonement for bloodguilt

• כִּפֵּר / kipper (“atone/make atonement”) — Lit. “to cover, wipe away, appease/propitiate.” Semantic range: here, the execution of Saul’s descendants “before the LORD” to remove bloodguilt and end a covenant-curse famine (21:1-14) — a retributive-justice/expiation mechanism, textually and theologically DISTINCT from the baseline propitiation_atoning_sacrifice entry (Christ’s once-for-all, sufficient atonement, 3:25). Theological meaning: illustrates the seriousness with which the covenant treats communal/national bloodguilt as a real barrier requiring resolution before covenant blessing can resume — a further, national-scale outworking of Doctrine 3. Hmong rendering (NEW term): kev theej txim rau tej ntshav uas raug tua (“making atonement/payment for bloodguilt”), deliberately kept lexically DISTINCT from the baseline qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum (hilastērion). Risk: Critical. This chapter is the single highest-risk passage in 2 Samuel for confusing categories: (1) it must never be taught as validating or modeling ongoing retributive human sacrifice as spiritually efficacious; (2) it must never be conflated with Christ’s unique, sufficient, once-for-all atonement; (3) most critically, its underlying logic (death required to remove covenant-curse/national calamity) is uncomfortably close to Hmong traditional-religion animal sacrifice offered to appease ancestral/nature spirits and avert calamity (fij dab, fij xwm kab) — mandatory human theologian review and explicit contrast-teaching required at every occurrence.

Chapter 22 — David’s song of deliverance (= Psalm 18)

• צוּר / tsur (“rock”), מְצֻדָה / metsudah (“fortress/stronghold”), מָגֵן / magen (“shield”), קֶרֶן יֶשַׁע / qeren yesha (“horn of salvation”) — A cluster of martial/geological deliverance-metaphors for God as refuge and rescuer. Theological meaning: poetic celebration of God’s faithfulness (tying back to chesed, ch.7:15) as David’s personal deliverer across a lifetime of conflict. Hmong rendering: kuv lub pob zeb, kuv lub chaw ruaj khov, kuv daim thaiv, kub yaj kub uas cawm dim (rock / stronghold / shield / horn of salvation) — comprehension-level metaphors. Risk: High. Hmong traditional animist cosmology includes veneration of nature-spirits specifically associated with rocks and mountains (dab roob, dab zoov); calling God “my Rock” as a metaphor for unshakeable refuge and strength must be explicitly taught as figurative language for God’s character, never assimilated into literal rock/mountain-spirit veneration. The salvation/kev cawm dim term recurs here (reused from baseline) — note that in this OT context it is anchored to God generally as deliverer across David’s life, not specifically to Yexus Khetos as in the NT baseline’s mandatory anchoring rule; teaching should explain this OT-general/NT-specific distinction rather than force an anachronistic Christ-anchor onto every OT occurrence.

Chapter 23 — David’s last words; the “everlasting covenant”; the mighty men

• בְּרִית עוֹלָם / berith olam (“everlasting covenant”) — This is the explicit, climactic naming of what chapters 3, 5, and 7 have been building toward: “has he not made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure?” (23:5). Theological meaning: this verse is the formal textual bridge connecting the promise-language of 2 Sam 7 to the doctrinal category “the Davidic Covenant,” and should be the primary cross-reference verse for Doctrine 1. Hmong rendering: REUSE the berith term coined at ch.3/ch.5 (kev cog lus), qualified kev cog lus mus ib txhis (“an everlasting covenant”), consistent with the ad olam/mus ib txhis rendering fixed in the core passage. Risk: Critical (culminating the risk already flagged for mamlakah/kisse in the core passage — this is the verse most likely to be quoted standalone in teaching, so its Huab Tais collision risk is at its highest here and requires the heaviest contrast-teaching).
• רוּחַ יהוה / Ruach YHWH (“Spirit of the LORD”) — “The Spirit of the LORD spoke by me” (23:2). Theological meaning: direct OT identification of the same divine Spirit who inspires prophetic speech, later fully revealed as the Holy Spirit. Hmong rendering: REUSE baseline holy_spirit entry exactly — Vaj Ntsuj Plig. Risk: Critical (inherited) — the mandatory Vaj-prefix rule applies with full force here; this OT occurrence must never be rendered with the bare, animistic-collision-risk ntsuj plig.

Chapter 24 — The census, the plague, and the altar at Araunah’s threshing floor

• מִזְבֵּחַ / mizbeach (“altar”) and עוֹלָה / olah (“burnt offering”) — Lit. “place of slaughter/sacrifice” and “that which goes up (in smoke).” Theological meaning: David’s altar and burnt/peace offerings (24:25) at the threshing floor of Araunah both end the plague and, by later canonical tradition (2 Chron 3:1), mark the future site of Solomon’s temple — directly fulfilling 7:13’s “he shall build a house for my name” and closing the book on a note of worship and covenant continuity. Hmong rendering (NEW terms): thaj rooj fij (altar), khoom fij hlawv tag (whole burnt offering). Risk: Critical. This is the book’s second-highest collision point after chesed/mamlakah: OT sacrificial-altar practice (killing an animal, burning it, to end divine judgment and restore covenant blessing) is phenomenologically very close to actual Hmong traditional-religion practice of offering pigs/chickens at a household or village altar to appease ancestral/nature spirits and avert calamity or illness. This is precisely the collision already flagged and carefully managed in the Romans baseline for living_sacrifice/fij vocabulary; that same disambiguation discipline (explicit marking as either Christ’s unique fulfillment-anticipating type, distinct from the shamanic appeasement system) must be applied here with full force and mandatory human theologian review.

---

§3. Summary of Cross-References to the Romans Baseline

The following baseline TM entries are reused verbatim in 2 Samuel content with no modification: god, lord (extended with the tus TSWV typographic convention for the divine name, §1 v.1), holy_spirit, human_spirit_soul, servant_slave_doulos, promise, sin_act_and_condition, mercy, hope, endurance, worship_serve_cultic, power (hwjchim, cf. ch.7:8 “LORD of hosts”), salvation_save, election_choose (background for nagid, ch.7:8), adoption_as_sons (background for ch.7:14), redemption (contrasted with ch.14’s blood-avenger), propitiation_atoning_sacrifice (contrasted with ch.21/24’s OT atonement/altar terms), living_sacrifice (background for qadash/fij in ch.8, ch.24), heir, glory, kingdom_of_god (background for, but distinguished from, mamlakah), love, truth, father_god, son_of_god.

No baseline Critical/High term is re-glossed or contradicted anywhere in this analysis. All newly surfaced terms are flagged for TM-revision review per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2 rule 4 and are catalogued in analysis/08_core_glossary.md.