Amos — Full-Book Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package, Phase 1)

§0. Methodological Note (Important Correction to Template Assumption)

The Phase-1 template instruction refers to “the original Koine Greek.” Amos is a book of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament); its original language is Biblical Hebrew, not Koine Greek. This analysis therefore treats the Masoretic Hebrew text as primary, citing the Septuagint (LXX) Greek only where it illuminates a term’s later reception (e.g., Amos 9:11-12 as quoted in Acts 15:16-17). This is a scope correction, not a contradiction of the governing baseline: the baseline Romans package remains the destination-language authority for register, script, risk-tier conventions, and every term it has already fixed. Where Amos re-uses a concept already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json (e.g., God, Lord, sin, wrath, idol, righteousness, nations, remnant, mercy, hope, election, power, worship), the exact recorded Hmong string is reused without alteration. New terms unique to Amos (Hebrew covenant vocabulary, OT cultic-offering vocabulary, the divine name YHWH itself, the Day-of-the-LORD complex, and the Davidic-restoration formula) are analyzed fresh below and proposed as extensions for analysis/08_core_glossary.md, subject to the same TRI escalation/review discipline as the baseline.

On the divine name (YHWH): Amos uses the Tetragrammaton (יהוה) roughly 80 times — far more densely than the baseline’s NT kyrios material. The established Hmong Bible translation tradition (Vaj Lug Kub Npaiv Npaum) does not render YHWH with the same string used for generic “lord/master” (tus Tswv); it uses the dedicated proper name Yawmsaub, reserved exclusively for the covenant name of God throughout the Old Testament, kept lexically distinct from Vajtswv (Elohim/God) and from tus Tswv (Adonai/kyrios, generic “lord/master,” also applied to Christ in the NT). This analysis adopts Yawmsaub as the fixed rendering for YHWH, as an authority-consistent extension of the baseline (it does not contradict “tus Tswv” for kyrios/Adonai — the two proper referents are different Hebrew/Greek words with a documented distinct Hmong Bible-tradition rendering). This choice is logged for formal TM-revision review before publication, per baseline §2 rule 4.

Register: Formal, reverent, literary Hmong, identical register commitment as the baseline (§5 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md). Amos’s genre (covenant lawsuit, oracle, woe-cry, vision report, hymn fragment) requires the same literary register as Pauline argument, with additional attention to poetic parallelism, which Hmong renders well through paired classifiers and parallel clause structure.

---

§1. CORE PASSAGE — Amos 5:18-24 — Verse-by-Verse Analysis

Amos 5:18

Text sense: “Woe to you who desire the day of the LORD! Why do you want the day of the LORD? It is darkness, and not light.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
Woe הוֹי hoy funerary/prophetic cry of doom	lament interjection; also opens judgment oracles (cf. 6:1) “Woe,” “Alas,” “Disaster to”	Signals a covenant-lawsuit judgment speech, not casual complaint	”Yuav raug txom nyem rau…” — Low risk; stable interjection pattern, no traditional-religion collision
desire / long for הַמִּתְאַוִּים ha-mit’awwim those craving/desiring	eager appetite, often for food or gain; here ironic — craving the wrong thing ”who desire,” “who long for”	Israel’s religious leaders wrongly assumed the Day would vindicate them, not judge them	Rendered descriptively, no fixed term needed; Low risk
the day of the LORD יוֹם יְהוָה yom YHWH ”day of Yahweh”	a decisive future intervention of God in judgment and/or vindication; popular expectation = victory over Gentile enemies; prophetic reversal = judgment ON Israel first ”the Day of the LORD,” “that Day,” “the Lord’s day” (NOT to be confused with the NT “Lord’s Day”/Sunday)	Central doctrinal term for “The Day of the Lord as Judgment.” Amos performs the earliest and sharpest prophetic reversal of popular Day-of-the-LORD theology: the nation assumed it meant automatic national vindication; Amos declares it means darkness/judgment because of covenant unfaithfulness	NEW TERM — “Hnub ntawm Yawmsaub.” Critical risk. Two distinct hazards: (1) if rendered generically as “a day when God acts,” the shocking reversal (expected blessing → actual judgment) is lost; (2) risk of conflation with unrelated Hmong millenarian/apocalyptic movement vocabulary from 19th-20th c. Hmong messianic movements (e.g., various “new king”/end-times prophetic movements in Hmong history) — must be anchored explicitly to YHWH’s covenant-lawsuit judgment on His own covenant people, not generic end-of-world folklore
darkness / not light חֹשֶׁךְ … אוֹר choshek … or absence of light / illumination	judgment, calamity, covenant-curse imagery (cf. Deut 28) vs. blessing/salvation imagery ”darkness,” “gloom” / “light”	Reverses the standard light=salvation, darkness=judgment expectation onto Israel itself	”kev tsaus ntuj” / “kev pom kev” (light) — Low risk; stable imagery, transfers cross-culturally without collision

Amos 5:19

Text sense: “As if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him, or went into the house and leaned his hand against the wall, and a serpent bit him.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
lion אֲרִי ari lion	apex predator; frequent OT judgment/danger metaphor (cf. 3:8) “lion”	Escaping one disaster only to meet a worse one — the Day of the LORD offers no safe escape route for the unrepentant	”tsov ntxhuav” — Low risk; concrete predator imagery, transfers well (tigers fill the culturally-parallel apex-predator slot in Hmong storytelling, but literal “tsov ntxhuav” — lion — is already an established loanword-adjacent term in Hmong Christian usage)
bear דֹּב dov bear	second inescapable danger in the triad ”bear”	Same escalating-doom function	”dais” — Low risk
serpent / snake נָחָשׁ nachash snake	danger hidden in a place of apparent safety (the house) “serpent,” “snake”	Even domestic refuge offers no safety from the coming judgment	”nab” — Low risk. Note: nachash is the same word used for the Genesis serpent; no independent doctrinal collision arises here since Amos uses it purely as a natural-danger image, not a demonic reference — no teaching note required beyond noting the wordplay is not present in Hmong

Amos 5:20

Text sense: “Is not the day of the LORD darkness, and not light, and gloom with no brightness in it?”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
gloom אֹפֶל ophel thick/deep darkness	intensifies choshek; total absence of hope-light ”gloom,” “deep darkness”	Rhetorical intensification driving home the total reversal of expectation	”kev tsaus nti” — Low risk
brightness נֹגַהּ nogah shining brightness/gleam	glimmer of hope/light ”brightness,” “gleam”	The negation (“no brightness”) forecloses any partial escape or silver lining	”kev ci ntsa iab” — Low risk

Amos 5:21

Text sense: “I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
I hate שָׂנֵאתִי sane’ti strong aversion, active rejection	covenant-lawsuit vocabulary; parallels divorce/rejection language elsewhere in the prophets ”I hate,” “I loathe”	God is not indifferent to Israel’s worship — He actively and passionately rejects it because it is severed from justice	Stable verb; Low-Medium risk, but must never be softened to “am not pleased with” — the intensity is doctrinally load-bearing for “Judgment on Empty Religious Ritual”
I despise מָאַסְתִּי ma’asti to reject/refuse/hold in contempt	forensic rejection, often of a covenant party or an offering ”I despise,” “I reject,” “I spurn”	Reinforces sane’ti; a doubled verb pair for rhetorical intensity	”kuv ntxub, kuv tsis lees yuav” — Medium risk; must be paired (as in the Hebrew) to preserve intensity, not flattened to a single verb
feasts חַגֵּיכֶם chaggeykhem pilgrimage festivals (lit. “your feasts”)	the three great pilgrim feasts (Passover/Unleavened Bread, Weeks, Booths) and by extension the whole festival calendar ”feasts,” “festivals,” “religious feasts”	These were divinely instituted celebrations, yet God rejects these very ones — the problem is not the ritual form but the injustice underneath it	NEW TERM — “tej hnub kevcai noj haus.” High risk. Shares the kevcai root already flagged in the baseline for Txoj Kevcai (Law) and for kevcai raus dej (baptism); here the risk is different — not confusing biblical law with ancestral custom, but confusing God’s rejection of hollow observance with a claim that ritual/formal worship itself is the problem, when Amos’s actual target is injustice practiced alongside ritual. Must be taught alongside doctrine 2 (Empty Ritual): God does not condemn festivals as such, but festivals divorced from mishpat (justice, v.24)
solemn assemblies עַצְּרֹתֵיכֶם atzerotekhem formal sacred convocations (lit. “your restraint-gatherings,” from a root meaning “to restrain/hold back [for a sacred purpose]“)	official cultic gatherings, often at the close of a festival ”solemn assemblies,” “sacred assemblies,” “convocations”	Parallel/synonym to chaggeykhem; doubles the target of divine rejection	”tej rooj sib txoos dawb huv” — Medium risk; comprehension-level gap (no exact Hmong liturgical-calendar equivalent), not a traditional-religion collision

Amos 5:22

Text sense: “Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the peace offerings of your fattened animals, I will not look upon them.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
burnt offerings עֹלוֹת olot that which “goes up” (in smoke); a wholly-consumed offering	the most costly, fully-surrendered category of OT sacrifice, normally a sign of total devotion ”burnt offerings,” “whole burnt offerings”	Even Israel’s most costly, most devoted form of worship is rejected — the shock is that the highest-value ritual currency cannot purchase divine favor absent justice	NEW TERM — “khoom fij kub tag.” Critical risk. This directly touches the baseline’s already-flagged fij (sacrifice/offering) domain, shared with Hmong shamanic spirit-appeasement offerings (fij dab) and with the baseline’s Critical-risk hilastērion (propitiation) and High-risk living sacrifice entries. The specific NEW danger in Amos is the opposite direction from the Romans baseline: in Romans, the risk is hearers assimilating Christ’s once-for-all atonement into “one more appeasement sacrifice”; here in Amos, the risk is hearers concluding “the ritual technique itself must have been performed incorrectly” (a very shamanic diagnostic instinct — if an offering fails to please, the fault is usually assumed to be ritual error) rather than the correct diagnosis: the offerings were technically flawless but relationally worthless because offered by people practicing injustice (cf. 5:24; also Isaiah 1:11-17, Micah 6:6-8 for the same prophetic pattern). Mandatory teaching note required
grain offerings מִנְחֹת minchot tribute/gift offerings of grain	a lesser-cost, frequently-offered category alongside the burnt offering ”grain offerings,” “meal offerings,” “cereal offerings”	Paired with olot to represent the whole spectrum of Israel’s offering system, from costly to modest — none of it is exempted from the rejection	NEW TERM — “khoom fij qoob loo.” Critical risk, same collision profile as olot above; kept as a lexically distinct compound so learners see the category breadth of what God rejects
I will not accept לֹא אֶרְצֶה lo ertzeh I will not delight in / be pleased with	technical cultic-acceptance vocabulary (cf. Leviticus’s “acceptable to the LORD”) “I will not accept,” “I will not be pleased with”	The formal, technical language of ritual acceptability is being formally revoked — a covenant-lawsuit verdict, not a mood	”kuv yuav tsis txais yuav” — Medium risk
peace offerings / fellowship offerings שֶׁלֶם / שַׁלְמֵי מְרִיאֵיכֶם shelem / shalmei meri’eychem offering of well-being/wholeness; “peace offerings of your fattened animals”	a communal, celebratory sacrifice, shared in a sacred meal between worshiper, priest, and God ”peace offerings,” “fellowship offerings,” “offerings of well-being”	The most joyful, relationally-oriented sacrifice category is also rejected — even celebration divorced from justice is intolerable to God	NEW TERM — “khoom fij sib raug zoo.” Critical risk, same fij domain collision as above; the “fattened animals” detail additionally signals conspicuous wealth being offered while the poor are exploited (cf. ch.2, ch.4, ch.8) — must be taught alongside doctrine 1 (Social Justice) as well as doctrine 2
I will not look upon לֹא אַבִּיט lo abbit I will not regard/gaze upon	to turn favorable attention toward ”I will not look upon,” “I will not regard”	Reinforces total non-acceptance across every offering category named	”kuv yuav tsis saib ntsoov rau” — Low-Medium risk

Amos 5:23

Text sense: “Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
noise of your songs הֶמְיַת שִׁרֶיךָ hemyat shirekha the roaring/humming/tumult of your songs	hemyah is elsewhere used for the roar of the sea or of a crowd — deliberately downgrading “sacred song” to mere “noise" "noise of your songs,” “din of your songs”	The very worship music Israel treasured as beautiful and pleasing to God, God now calls mere noise/tumult — total sensory rejection of the entire liturgical experience	”suab nrov ntawm nej tej nkauj” — Low-Medium risk; note the deliberate insult in “noise” (hemyah) rather than a neutral word for “song” — translators should preserve the derogatory register, not soften it to a neutral “your beautiful songs”
melody of your harps זִמְרַת נְבָלֶיךָ zimrat nevalekha melody/music of your lyres/harps	nevel = a stringed instrument (lyre/harp), used in both cultic and celebratory contexts ”melody of your harps,” “music of your lyres”	Instrumental worship music, likely used in the very feasts and assemblies just rejected (v.21)	“suab nkauj ntawm nej tej nog ncas” — Low risk; concrete musical-instrument imagery, comprehension gap only (Hmong instruments differ from ANE lyres) — an illustrative footnote on the instrument, not a doctrinal fix, is sufficient

Amos 5:24

Text sense: “But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
justice מִשְׁפָּט mishpat judgment, judicial verdict, the act/practice of judging rightly	the concrete social-legal practice of giving each party — especially the poor and vulnerable — their due in court, commerce, and community life; distinct from, though allied with, tzedakah ”justice,” “judgment,” “what is right”	This is the doctrinal center of “Social Justice and Care for the Poor.” Mishpat is not an abstract ideal but a demanded, concrete social practice: fair courts, honest weights, protection of the poor, widow, orphan, and laborer (cf. 2:6-8; 5:7,10-15; 8:4-6)	NEW TERM — “kev txiav txim ncaj” (justice as rightly-rendered judgment), distinguished from tzedakah below. Critical risk. Must NOT be collapsed into the single baseline string “Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees” without the judicial/social qualifier, or the concrete demand for courtroom and marketplace justice toward the poor is lost, softened into private piety
righteousness צְדָקָה tzedakah rightness, right relational conduct, covenant faithfulness in action	ethical uprightness lived out toward covenant partners (God and neighbor), overlapping with but broader than mishpat’s judicial focus ”righteousness,” “right living,” “faithfulness”	Paired with mishpat as a fixed word-pair throughout the prophets (cf. Isaiah, Micah) denoting the full scope of covenant-faithful communal life	Reuses baseline “Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees / tus ncaj ncees” — but with a MANDATORY disambiguation note. Critical risk, extended sense. The baseline glossary fixed this exact Hmong string for Romans’ forensic, imputed righteousness (a status credited by faith apart from works, Rom 3-4). Amos 5:24 uses the cognate Hebrew concept in its OT ethical-social sense: right conduct practiced toward the poor and vulnerable, not a status reckoned by faith. Reusing the identical Hmong string across both books is lexically correct (same target-language term is the historically attested rendering for this word-family), but curriculum content MUST include an explicit teaching note distinguishing “righteousness as forensic gift received by faith” (Romans) from “righteousness as covenant-faithful justice practiced toward neighbor” (Amos) — collapsing the two senses without comment risks either moralizing Romans or spiritualizing-away Amos’s concrete social demand
roll down / roll on יִגַּל yiggal to roll, to flow forth	rushing, unstoppable motion, often of water ”roll down,” “flow,” “roll on”	The image is not a gentle trickle but a flash-flood torrent — justice is to be an overwhelming, unstoppable force in communal life, not an occasional gesture	”lo tuaj yam li dej nrig” — Low-Medium risk; agrarian flood imagery is highly accessible to a Hmong highland farming context
like waters כַּמַּיִם kammayim like water(s)	ordinary or floodwaters ”like waters,” “like a flood”	Contrasts with the next clause’s specific kind of water (a perennial stream) — together forming a merism: both torrential and unfailing	”yam li dej” — Low risk
ever-flowing stream נַחַל אֵיתָן nachal eitan a perennial wadi/stream (lit. “a mighty/enduring streambed”)	most wadis in the ANE run dry seasonally; eitan specifies one that never dries up — a rare, treasured image of permanence ”an ever-flowing stream,” “a never-failing stream,” “a perpetual torrent”	Justice and righteousness are not to be seasonal or occasional but a permanent, unfailing feature of covenant community life — directly indicting the seasonal, festival-calendar religiosity just condemned in vv.21-23	NEW TERM — “tus dej ntws tsis tu ncua” (a stream that flows without ever stopping). Low-Medium risk; strong positive agrarian image, no collision, but the “never dries up” nuance (contrast with seasonal wadis) needs a brief explanatory note since Hmong highland streams are typically already perennial and the specific ANE contrast may be lost without comment

---

§2. FULL-BOOK CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER SEMANTIC COVERAGE (Amos 1–9)

Chapter 1 — Oracles Against the Nations (Part 1): Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
Thus says the LORD כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה koh amar YHWH ”thus/so says YHWH”	fixed prophetic messenger-formula, marking the speech as a direct royal decree from the divine Sovereign, not the prophet’s own opinion ”Thus says the LORD,” “This is what the LORD says”	Establishes the entire book’s authority structure: every oracle is a legal indictment issued by the divine King, not human commentary	NEW TERM — “Yawmsaub hais li no.” Low-Medium risk; stable formula once Yawmsaub is fixed (see §0); must be used identically at every occurrence (roughly 20+ times across the book)
for three transgressions … and for four עַל־שְׁלֹשָׁה פִשְׁעֵי … וְעַל־אַרְבָּעָה al-shelosha pish’ei … ve’al-arba’ah ”for three … and for four”	a numerical escalation idiom (x, x+1) signaling an overflowing, undeniable accumulation of guilt — not a literal count of exactly four sins ”for three transgressions … and for four,” “for the many crimes of…”	Sets the rhetorical pattern of the whole oracle-cycle (ch.1-2): guilt has reached a tipping point after repeated warning, requiring “review” rather than silent omission at every recurrence	Idiom rendered descriptively: “vim muaj ntau yam kev fav xeeb kawg li” — Medium risk (comprehension gap; the escalating numeral idiom itself is not native to Hmong rhetorical convention and may need a footnote)
transgression(s) פֶּשַׁע pesha breach of covenant/rebellion against a rightful sovereign	more forceful than ordinary “sin” (chatta’ah, missing a mark); implies willful, treasonous revolt against a covenant lord/king ”transgression,” “crime,” “rebellion”	NEW TERM — “covenant rebellion.” Load-bearing across ch.1-2’s entire oracle cycle against BOTH the foreign nations and, climactically, Israel/Judah — establishing that God’s moral demand for justice is not Israel-exclusive but universal, grounding doctrine 3 (Sovereignty over All Nations)	“kev fav xeeb” (rebellion against one’s rightful lord), used alongside baseline “kev txhaum” for the milder general sense. High risk: Hmong customary wrongdoing-language (per baseline’s own established caution on hamartia/txhaum) already tends toward reparable social/ritual fault; pesha’s treason-against-a-sovereign nuance is stronger still and must be explicitly taught as rebellion against the cosmic King, not a repairable social breach
fire (judgment) אֵשׁ esh fire	the recurring judgment-instrument across every oracle in ch.1-2 (“I will send a fire upon…”) “fire,” “flame”	Concrete, cross-culturally universal judgment image; underscores that God’s judgment on the nations is real, historical, and severe, not merely rhetorical	”hluav taws” — Low risk
Damascus / Gaza / Tyre / Edom / Ammon (and their peoples/place-names) דַּמֶּשֶׂק, עַזָּה, צֹר, אֱדוֹם, עַמּוֹן Dammeseq, Azzah, Tzor, Edom, Ammon proper place-names of Israel’s neighboring nations	historical political/ethnic entities, each judged for specific, named atrocities (e.g., “threshing Gilead with iron threshing sledges,” “delivering up captives to Edom”) (proper names, unchanged)	Doctrinal anchor for “God’s Sovereignty over All Nations”: YHWH, covenant God of Israel, is shown here holding foreign, non-covenant nations morally accountable to the same universal ethical standard (especially concerning war-atrocities and human trafficking) — He is not a tribal deity but Judge of all peoples	Transliterated proper names, standard convention (cf. baseline’s “cov Yudas,” “cov Kilis” pattern): “Damaxes,” “Nkaxa,” “Tiles,” “Edoos,” “Amoos” — Low risk, comprehension-level only

Chapter 2 — Oracles Against the Nations (Part 2): Moab, Judah, and Climactically Israel

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
sold the righteous for silver / needy for a pair of sandals מָכְרוּ בַכֶּסֶף צַדִּיק וְאֶבְיוֹן בַּעֲבוּר נַעֲלָיִם makhru bakesef tzaddiq ve’evyon ba’avur na’alayim economic exploitation reducing a poor, righteous person’s fate to trivial monetary value	debt-slavery, judicial corruption, treating human beings as tradeable commodities over petty sums ”sell the righteous for silver,” “sell the poor for a pair of sandals”	Core Social-Justice indictment. Introduces the specific, concrete social sins (debt-bondage exploitation of the poor, corrupt courts) that will run through the whole book (cf. ch.4,5,8)	Descriptive rendering: “muag cov pluag thiab cov ncaj ncees pub tau nyiaj me me xwb” — High risk: intersects directly with the hmoov (fate) collision flagged below at ch.4/ch.5 — poverty here is explicitly the result of exploitation, not impersonal misfortune, and must be taught as such
the needy / the poor אֶבְיוֹן / עָנִי / דַּל evyon / ani / dal one lacking means; afflicted, humble, low-status	the vulnerable social class repeatedly named as the specific object of God’s justice-demand throughout Amos ”the poor,” “the needy,” “the afflicted,” “the lowly”	NEW TERM cluster — central to doctrine 1. These near-synonyms together define the moral center of the book’s social-justice demand (cf. 2:7, 4:1, 5:11-12, 8:4,6)	“cov pluag” (the poor) / “cov txom nyem” (the needy/afflicted). High risk. Hmong traditional cosmology attributes differential prosperity/poverty largely to impersonal fate/fortune (hmoov) bestowed or withheld by ancestors/spirits according to ritual correctness. If poverty is heard through hmoov categories, it is naturalized as deserved bad luck rather than recognized as the product of specific, addressable human injustice that God commands His people to remedy — directly undermining doctrine 1. Per the baseline’s own permanent prohibition on hmoov vocabulary for grace/election, hmoov-family vocabulary must never be used to describe the condition of “the poor” in this curriculum; poverty must be framed relationally/ethically (result of exploitation, object of covenant justice-demand), never fatalistically
trample / crush שָׁאַף / רָצַץ sha’af / ratzatz to pant after, to gasp/trample; to crush/oppress	violent economic exploitation, e.g., “who trample the head of the poor into the dust” (2:7) “trample,” “crush,” “oppress”	Concrete, visceral verbs describing active oppression, not passive neglect	”tsuj yuam” / “tsim txom” — Medium risk; concrete verbs, comprehension-level only
Nazirite נָזִיר nazir one consecrated/set apart by a special vow (abstaining from wine, uncut hair, etc.)	a voluntary, temporary or lifelong vow of consecration to God (cf. Numbers 6) “Nazirite”	Amos 2:11-12 indicts Israel for corrupting/silencing this consecrated class (making Nazirites drink wine) — suppression of God-appointed voices of devotion, paired with silencing the prophets	Transliteration “tus Naxi (uas khi lus fij rau Vajtswv)” — Medium risk; no native Hmong equivalent custom exists (comprehension gap, not a collision), modeled on the baseline’s circumcision-entry pattern (explanatory gloss required, not doctrinal fix)
prophets (silenced) נְבִיאִים nevi’im those who speak on behalf of / by the authority of God	God’s authorized covenant messengers, commanding, warning, and interpreting history on His behalf ”prophets”	Amos 2:11-12’s charge that Israel commanded prophets “Do not prophesy” foreshadows Amaziah’s identical demand to Amos himself in ch.7	See Chapter 7 entry below for full treatment of “tus cev Vajtswv lus” (prophet) — High risk

Chapter 3 — Election, Accountability, and the Compulsion of Prophecy

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
known (chosen) יָדַעְתִּי yada’ti ”I have known” (covenantal, intimate, choosing knowledge, not mere cognitive awareness)	election/intimacy verb; “know” in covenant contexts frequently means “choose, enter covenant relationship with, set apart" "known,” “chosen,” “singled out”	3:2 “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” — foundational Election text. Paradoxically paired with the heaviest judgment (“therefore I will punish you”) — election brings greater, not lesser, accountability	Reuses baseline “election_choose” entry exactly: “kev xaiv (Vajtswv xaiv raws li nws lub siab nyiam).” Critical risk, identical collision profile to the Romans baseline entry: must never be rendered with hmoov (fate) vocabulary, which would make Israel’s chosen status a matter of impersonal luck rather than God’s sovereign, relational choice — and must be paired with the accountability half of 3:2 so election is never taught as mere privilege without responsibility
Can two walk together, unless they have agreed? הַיֵלְכוּ שְ�נַיִם יַחְדָּו בִּלְתִּי אִם־נוֹעָדוּ hayelkhu shenayim yachdav bilti im-no’adu rhetorical proverb on necessary agreement for joint action	series of cause-effect rhetorical questions (3:3-8) building toward: the LORD has spoken, so the prophet must prophesy ”Can two walk together unless they agree?”	Establishes the inevitability and compulsion of true prophecy — Amos does not choose to speak; he is compelled, as one who hears a lion roar and cannot help but fear	Descriptive proverb rendering — “Ob leeg tsis tau mus ua ke tau, tsuas yog lawv pom zoo ua ke” — Low risk, transfers well (agreement/consensus proverbs are a familiar Hmong rhetorical form)
the lion has roared … who will not fear? הָאַרְיֵה שָׁאָג … מִי לֹא יִירָא ha’aryeh sha’ag … mi lo yira the lion has roared; who will not fear	metaphor for the terrifying, compelling force of the prophetic word ”the lion has roared; who will not fear?”	The prophetic word is not optional commentary but an overwhelming compulsion, like fear before a roaring lion	”tsov ntxhuav twb nqhuab lawm… leej twg yuav tsis ntshai?” — Low risk (reuses lion imagery from core passage)
horns of the altar קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ qarnot ha-mizbe’ach the projecting corners of the sacrificial altar	a place of ritual sanctity and (elsewhere in OT) asylum/refuge ”horns of the altar”	3:14’s judgment “the horns of the altar shall be cut off” strikes directly at the cultic system at Bethel — even its most sacred fixtures will not survive judgment, reinforcing doctrine 2 (Empty Ritual)	“tej kub ntawm lub thaj fij” — Medium risk; comprehension-level gap (altar architecture unfamiliar), no collision

Chapter 4 — Oppression of the Poor, Hollow Worship at Bethel/Gilgal, and the Refrain of Unrepentance

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
cows of Bashan פָּרוֹת הַבָּשָׁן parot ha-Bashan fattened cattle from the fertile Bashan region	derisive epithet for the indulgent, oppressive elite women of Samaria ”you cows of Bashan”	Vivid indictment linking personal luxury directly to the oppression of the poor and needy named in the same verse (4:1)	“cov nyuj Npasaas” — Low-Medium risk; transliterated place-name + concrete animal image, comprehension-level footnote recommended (unfamiliar geography), no traditional-religion collision
oppress / crush the poor עֹשְׁקוֹת דַּלִּים, רֹצְצוֹת אֶבְיוֹנִים osheqot dallim, rotzetzot evyonim oppress the poor, crush the needy	direct repetition of ch.2’s exploitation vocabulary, now localized to Samaria’s wealthy women ”who oppress the poor, who crush the needy”	Reinforces doctrine 1 with a specific, gendered, class-based social indictment	Reuses “cov pluag / cov txom nyem” + “tsim txom” established above — High risk (same hmoov caution applies)
yet you did not return to me וְלֹא־שַׁבְתֶּם עָדַי ve-lo-shavtem adai ”and you did not turn back to me” (refrain repeated 5x in 4:6-11)	covenant-relational “return/repentance” vocabulary (shuv), distinct from mere behavior modification ”yet you did not return to me,” “you would not repent”	Each disaster (famine, drought, blight, plague, military defeat) was a disciplinary covenant-warning intended to provoke repentance/return, not mere suffering — and each failed	NEW TERM — “tig rov qab los cuag Vajtswv.” Medium-High risk. Must be distinguished from the baseline’s NT “renewal of the mind” (hloov siab tshiab, a settled Hmong Christian idiom for conversion): the OT shuv concept is specifically covenantal “turning back” to a Lord one has strayed from, appropriate for teaching alongside — but not merged with — the NT renewal term
prepare to meet your God הִכּוֹן לִקְרֹאת־אֱלֹהֶיךָ hikkon liqro’t-Eloheykha ”get ready to meet your God”	summons to a decisive, unavoidable confrontation with the divine Judge ”prepare to meet your God”	Climactic close of ch.4’s disciplinary refrain — the ultimate confrontation, now inescapable, anticipates the Day-of-the-LORD material of ch.5	”npaj txhij mus tos koj tus Vajtswv.” Medium risk (reuses baseline “Vajtswv”); comprehension-level gravity note needed so this is not read as a neutral appointment but as a courtroom summons
the LORD, the God of hosts יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת YHWH Elohei ha-Tzeva’ot ”YHWH, God of the [heavenly/angelic] armies”	a divine title emphasizing cosmic-military sovereign power, closing several oracles in Amos (4:13; 5:14-16, 27; 9:5) “the LORD God of hosts,” “the LORD Almighty”	Reinforces doctrine 3 (Sovereignty over All Nations) — YHWH commands cosmic/heavenly armies, not merely Israel’s; used climactically after the creation-hymn fragment of 4:13 (forms mountains, creates wind)	NEW TERM — “Yawmsaub uas kav tag nrho tej tub rog ntuj.” High risk: must be clearly distinguished from Hmong folk-belief in shamanically-mobilized spirit-armies/warrior-spirits (commanded by a txiv neeb in ritual combat against hostile spirits); YHWH’s “hosts” here denote sovereign cosmic command, not a shaman-style spirit-battle resource to be petitioned or negotiated with

Chapter 5 — Lament, Call to Seek the LORD, and the Core Passage (5:18-24 treated in §1 above)

This chapter contains the core passage (5:18-24), fully treated verse-by-verse in §1. The remainder of the chapter (5:1-17, 5:25-27) is covered here.

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
the virgin Israel has fallen נָפְלָה לֹא־תוֹסִיף קוּם בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל naflah lo-tosif qum betulat Yisra’el a funeral-lament (“fallen, will not rise again”) personifying the nation as a young woman	national personification, funeral-dirge genre (qinah) applied prophetically before the fact ”the virgin Israel has fallen, no more to rise”	Amos sings Israel’s funeral song in advance — judgment is so certain it can already be mourned	”tus ntxhais Yixalayees uas ntog lawm” — Low-Medium risk; personification transfers reasonably, comprehension-level note on the funeral-dirge genre recommended
Seek the LORD, and live דִּרְשׁוּ אֶת־יְהוָה וִחְיוּ dirshu et-YHWH vichyu ”seek/inquire of YHWH, and live” (repeated 5:4,6,14)	urgent covenant imperative — actively pursuing right relationship with God as opposed to seeking illicit cult sites (Bethel, Gilgal, Beersheba, named in the same verses) “seek the LORD and live,” “seek good, not evil”	The one open door of hope within the judgment oracle — but note it is seeking the LORD, explicitly contrasted with seeking at Bethel/Gilgal, not ritual location-seeking	NEW TERM — “nrhiav Yawmsaub thiab yuav muaj txoj sia nyob.” Medium risk; must retain the explicit contrast with the false-cult-site seeking named in the same passage or the imperative loses its polemical edge
Bethel shall come to nothing בֵית־אֵל יִהְיֶה לְאָוֶן Beit-El yihyeh le-aven ironic wordplay: “Bethel” (house of God) becomes “Beth-Aven” (house of nothing/wickedness)	place-name wordplay indicting the illicit royal shrine at Bethel (cf. 1 Kings 12; also Amos 4:4, 5:5, 7:10-13, 8:14) “Bethel shall come to nothing”	The very sanctuary meant to represent God’s presence has become empty/worthless — reinforcing doctrine 2	Transliterated place-name “Npe-Es”, with [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: untranslatable Hebrew wordplay Beit-El/Beth-Aven] — the pun cannot be reproduced in Hmong; a footnote explaining the wordplay is required rather than an attempted phonetic equivalent
gate / establish justice in the gate מִשְׁפָּט בַּשָּׁעַר mishpat ba-sha’ar ”justice at the [city] gate,” the site of public legal proceedings in the ANE	concrete demand for honest courts, since city gates functioned as the courthouse ”establish justice in the gate,” “maintain justice at the gate”	Reuses mishpat (see core-passage 5:24 entry above) in its most concrete, institutional sense — an actual location-specific demand for judicial reform	Reuses “kev txiav txim ncaj”; add note: “ntawm rooj loog” (at the gate/entrance) as the concrete civic-legal setting — Critical risk, same as 5:24 entry
turn justice into wormwood הֲפַכְתֶּם לְלַעֲנָה מִשְׁפָּט hafakhtem le-la’anah mishpat ”you have turned justice into bitter-poison”	bitter-herb metaphor for the corruption/reversal of judicial process ”you turn justice into wormwood,” “you have turned justice into bitterness”	Vivid image of judicial corruption — justice made bitter and toxic instead of life-giving	”nej muab kev ncaj ncees ntxeev ua kev iab kev daw” — Low-Medium risk; comprehension-level (wormwood unfamiliar plant, general “bitter poison” substitute sufficient)
exile beyond Damascus גָלוֹתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵהָלְאָה לְדַמָּשֶׂק galoti etkhem me-hal’ah le-Dammeseq ”I will exile/cause you to go into captivity beyond Damascus”	first explicit exile threat in the book, echoing the covenant curses of Leviticus/Deuteronomy ”I will send you into exile beyond Damascus”	Concrete historical judgment — not merely rhetorical doom but an actual, later-fulfilled national catastrophe (cf. 2 Kings 17)	NEW TERM — “raug ntes coj mus lwm teb chaws (tim tebchaws Damaxes).” Medium risk; comprehension-level, connects with the covenant-curse background developed further in chs.6-7,9

Chapter 6 — Woe to the Complacent; Pride and Coming Exile

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
those at ease in Zion הַשַּׁאֲנַנִּים בְּצִיּוֹן ha-sha’ananim be-Tziyon complacent/self-secure ones	false security bred by prosperity and religious-national pride, blind to coming judgment ”those who are at ease/complacent in Zion”	Opening woe-cry (parallel to 5:18) directed at leadership complacency in both Judah’s Zion and Israel’s Samaria	Reuses “Woe” formula (“Yuav raug txom nyem rau…”) established at 5:18/6:1 — Low risk
ivory houses / houses of ease בֵּית שֵׁן … בֵּית הַשֻּׁקְטִים beit shen … beit ha-shuqtim ”houses of ivory… houses of ease”	luxury architecture as a symbol of wealth gained through the exploitation already indicted in ch.2, 4, 8 ”houses of ivory,” “houses of ease”	Concrete material-culture indictment tying opulence directly to injustice	NEW TERM — “tej tsev kub ntsuab” (ivory houses). Low risk; comprehension-level gap only (ivory unfamiliar as a Hmong luxury material), no traditional-religion collision
the pride of Jacob גְּאוֹן יַעֲקֹב ge’on Ya’aqov the “pride/height/majesty” of Jacob (Israel)	ironic double meaning: what Israel takes pride in, God abhors as arrogance ”the pride of Jacob,” “the excellency of Jacob”	God swears “by the pride of Jacob” that He will bring judgment — ironic self-referencing oath	”tus kev khav theeb ntawm Yakhauj” — reuses baseline “kev khav theeb” (boasting) — Low-Medium risk
day of calamity יוֹם אֵיד yom eid ”day of disaster/ruin”	a synonym-cluster with “the day of the LORD” (5:18-20), reinforcing the judgment-day theme across the book ”day of calamity,” “day of disaster”	Reinforces doctrine 4 by extending the Day-of-the-LORD judgment theme with a parallel formula	Rendered with the established “Hnub ntawm Yawmsaub” family of terms; “Hnub kev puas tsuaj” as the specific synonym here — Medium risk, must be taught as thematically continuous with 5:18-20, not a separate concept

Chapter 7 — Three Visions, Amos’s Intercession, and the Amaziah Confrontation

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
vision חָזוֹן / הֶרְאַנִי chazon / her’ani ”he showed me” — a divinely-given seeing	direct revelatory disclosure from God to the prophet, as opposed to dream-interpretation, omen-reading, or spirit-consultation ”vision,” “he showed me”	NEW TERM — foundational to the book’s prophetic-revelation mode (locusts, fire, plumb line, ch.7; summer fruit, ch.8; the altar vision, ch.9)	“Vajtswv qhia rau kuv pom” / “yog toog uas Vajtswv qhia.” High risk. Must be sharply distinguished from Hmong shamanic (txiv neeb) trance-journey visions, in which a shaman’s soul travels to negotiate with spirits on a client’s behalf. Amos’s visions are unsolicited, one-directional divine disclosures from the one true God, not soul-journeys or spirit-negotiations — mandatory teaching note required, parallel to the baseline’s caution on leitourgos and latreuō against shamanic vocabulary
locusts גֹּבַי / גָזָם gova / gazam swarming locusts	agricultural devastation ”locusts”	First vision; Amos intercedes and God relents — establishes the prophet’s intercessory role	”kooj ntaus” — Low risk; agrarian disaster imagery highly accessible to Hmong farming context
plumb line אֲנָךְ anakh a lead weight/plumb line used to check a wall’s verticality	a measuring standard, used metaphorically for an exacting, non-negotiable standard of judgment ”plumb line,” “tin,” “lead” (translation-disputed technical term)	Third vision (7:7-9): God will “never again pass by” Israel — measuring the nation against an exact standard it fails, ending the intercession pattern of the first two visions (no relenting this time)	NEW TERM — “txoj hlua ncaj (ntsuas kev ncaj).” Medium risk; unfamiliar building tool (comprehension gap only), with the important doctrinal note that God’s patience shifts within this chapter from relenting (visions 1-2) to final verdict (vision 3) — must be taught as the turning point toward the book’s judgment climax
I will not pass by them again לֹא־אוֹסִיף עוֹד עֲבוֹר לוֹ lo-osif od avor lo ”I will not again continue to pass over/spare them”	formula of finality, marking the end of divine forbearance (repeated 7:8, 8:2) “I will never again pass them by,” “I will spare them no longer”	Marks the decisive shift from covenant discipline (chs.1-6, still allowing repentance) to unconditional coming judgment	NEW TERM — “kuv yuav tsis dhau lawm” / “Vajtswv txoj kev ua siab ntev tas lawm.” Medium-High risk: must be taught, consistent with the baseline’s wrath_of_god caution, as the just, righteous exhaustion of covenant patience after repeated warning (chs.1-6) — NOT capricious spirit-anger requiring ritual appeasement, since no offering in ch.5 could reverse it
Amos’s calling / “I was a herdsman” בּוֹקֵר … וַיִּקָּחֵנִי יְהוָה boqer … vayyiqqacheni YHWH ”a herdsman… and the LORD took me”	direct divine commissioning of a non-professional (Amos was a herdsman/sycamore-dresser, not a member of a prophetic guild), overriding Amaziah’s demand that he stop prophesying ”I was a herdsman… and the LORD took me and said to me, ‘Go, prophesy…’”	Establishes prophetic authority as divinely conferred, not institutionally or professionally derived — directly answering Amaziah’s attempt to silence him on institutional grounds	”Yawmsaub coj kuv tawm ntawm kuv txoj haujlwm yug tshis yug yaj, thiab hais rau kuv tias, ‘Cia li mus cev lus’” — Medium risk; comprehension bridge to the baseline’s “apostle” entry (divinely-commissioned messenger, distinct from a self-appointed role) is useful for teaching purposes
Amaziah’s confrontation (silencing the prophet) לֶךְ־בְּרַח־לְךָ … וְלֹא־תִנָּבֵא עוֹד lekh-berach-lekha … ve-lo-tinnave od ”flee away… and prophesy no more”	attempted institutional/royal suppression of a divinely-sent prophetic word, at the royal sanctuary of Bethel ”Go, flee away… and never again prophesy at Bethel”	Direct parallel to 2:12’s earlier indictment (“you commanded the prophets, saying, ‘You shall not prophesy’”) — the pattern of silencing God’s messengers is itself named as a covenant crime	No new fixed term; narratively significant confirmation of the “tus cev Vajtswv lus” (prophet) entry’s High-risk status — silencing God’s authorized messenger is treated in Amos as compounding guilt

Chapter 8 — The Basket of Summer Fruit, Trampling the Needy, and Famine of the Word

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
summer fruit / the end קַיִץ / קֵץ qayits / qets ripe summer fruit / “the end”	untranslatable Hebrew wordplay: the basket of ripe fruit (qayits) visually signals that Israel’s “end” (qets) has ripened/arrived ”a basket of summer fruit… ‘The end has come upon my people Israel‘“	Fourth vision; the pun itself carries the theological punchline (ripeness = readiness for judgment)	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: untranslatable Hebrew pun qayits/qets] — no Hmong wordplay reproduces this; render literally as “lub tawb txiv qoob loo siav… ‘Lub sij hawm kawg tau los rau kuv haiv neeg Yixalayees lawm’” with a mandatory footnote explaining the Hebrew pun, per the baseline’s established convention for flagging untranslatable source-language wordplay rather than inventing a false Hmong equivalent
trample the needy / bring the poor to end הַשֹּׁאֲפִים אֶבְיוֹן, וְלַשְׁבִּית עֲנִיֵּי־אָרֶץ ha-sho’afim evyon, ve-lashbit aniyyei-aretz ”who trample the needy, to bring the poor of the land to an end”	repetition/escalation of the ch.2/4 exploitation language — now aiming specifically at eliminating the poor from the land through economic ruin ”who trample the needy and bring the poor of the land to an end”	Continues doctrine 1’s central social-justice indictment through concrete commercial fraud (rigged scales, inflated prices, dishonest weights, 8:5-6)	Reuses “cov pluag / cov txom nyem” + “tsim txom” — High risk, same hmoov caution as ch.2, ch.4, ch.5
dishonest scales / false balances מֹאזְנֵי מִרְמָה mo’zenei mirmah ”scales/balances of deceit”	commercial fraud vocabulary — merchants cheating the poor through rigged weights and measures ”false balances,” “dishonest scales”	Concrete economic-justice detail grounding the abstract mishpat demand of 5:24 in everyday marketplace practice	”tej teev nqes cuav” — Low-Medium risk; concrete commercial imagery transfers cleanly
famine of hearing the words of the LORD רָעָב … לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי יְהוָה ra’av … lishmoa et-divrei YHWH ”a famine… of hearing the words of YHWH”	not physical famine but a withdrawal of prophetic revelation — the most severe form of judgment in the book ”a famine, not of bread… but of hearing the words of the LORD”	The ultimate judgment: God stops speaking. Having rejected the prophetic word (ch.2, ch.7), Israel will one day desperately seek it and find only silence	NEW TERM — “kev tshaib nqhis Vajtswv Txoj Lus” (reuses “Vajtswv Txoj Lus,” the spoken word of God, distinct from baseline’s “Vaj Lug Kub,” the written Scripture). High risk: must be taught as the terrifying climax of the silencing-the-prophets pattern (ch.2, ch.7) — the withdrawal of revelation itself as judgment, a concept without a close traditional-religion analogue but requiring careful doctrinal framing so it is not read as arbitrary divine abandonment
the sun going down at noon וְהֵבֵאתִי הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ בַּצָּהֳרָיִם ve-heveiti ha-shemesh ba-tzaharayim ”I will make the sun go down at noon”	cosmic-disruption judgment imagery, echoing the darkness-not-light theme of 5:18-20 ”I will make the sun go down at noon”	Reinforces the Day-of-the-LORD darkness motif established in the core passage, now expressed as literal cosmic reversal	Reuses “kev tsaus ntuj” family established in §1 — Low-Medium risk

Chapter 9 — Vision at the Altar, Sovereignty Over All Peoples’ Histories, and Restoration

Terms	Variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
Are you not like the Cushites to me, O Israel? הֲלוֹא כִבְנֵי־כֻשִׁיִּים אַתֶּם לִי halo khivnei-Khushiyyim atem li ”Are you not to me like the sons of Cush?“	rhetorical leveling of Israel’s covenant status relative to a distant nation (Cush/Nubia) “Are you not like the Cushites to me?”	Key sovereignty-over-nations text, radically de-centering Israel’s presumed uniqueness — Israel’s election (ch.3) does not exempt it from the same moral accountability God exercises over every nation	NEW TERM — “cov Kus” (transliterated proper name, following the baseline’s “cov Yudas/cov Kilis” pattern). Low risk lexically, but High doctrinal weight: must be taught carefully alongside doctrine 3 and doctrine 6 (Election) so it reinforces, rather than contradicts, God’s genuine election of Israel — the point is that election does not exempt from accountability, not that election is meaningless
Did I not bring up Israel… and the Philistines… and the Syrians? הֲלוֹא אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל הֶעֱלֵיתִי … וּפְלִשְׁתִּיִּים … וַאֲרָם halo et-Yisra’el he’eleiti … u-Felishtiyyim … va-Aram ”Did I not bring up Israel from Egypt… and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?“	claims sovereign authorship over the founding “exodus-like” histories of multiple nations, not Israel’s alone ”Did I not bring Israel up from Egypt, the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?”	The single clearest textual anchor for doctrine 3 (Sovereignty over All Nations) in the whole book — YHWH is Lord of every nation’s history and origin story, not merely Israel’s exodus	Reuses baseline “lwm Haiv Neeg” (nations) with proper-name transliterations for Philistines/Syrians (“cov Filixatia,” “cov Alab/Xilias”); High doctrinal-weight note required so this is taught as expanding, not replacing, Israel’s unique covenant calling
sieve כְּבָרָה kevarah a sieve used for sifting grain	agricultural process metaphor: God will “sift” Israel among the nations, yet “not the least pebble/kernel shall fall to the ground" "I will sift the house of Israel… as one sifts with a sieve, but no pebble shall fall to the ground”	Judgment (sifting/scattering in exile) combined with a promise of preservation (nothing genuinely valuable is lost) — bridges the judgment material to the restoration material that immediately follows	NEW TERM — “raug ntxuav li ntxuav qoob.” Low-Medium risk; agrarian sifting imagery highly accessible in a Hmong rice-farming context
sinners of my people shall die by the sword כֹּל חַטָּאֵי עַמִּי יָמוּתוּ בֶּחָרֶב kol chatta’ei ammi yamutu ba-cherev reaffirms that judgment, though sifted/selective, is real and lethal for the unrepentant	closes the judgment section decisively before the restoration oracle begins ”all the sinners of my people shall die by the sword”	Ensures the restoration oracle (9:11-15) is not read as unconditional national exemption from judgment — the wicked within Israel are still judged; restoration is for a purified remnant/covenant line	Reuses baseline “txhaum / kev txhaum” and “cov seem” (remnant) — Medium risk
In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא אָקִים אֶת־סֻכַּת דָּוִיד הַנֹּפֶלֶת ba-yom ha-hu aqim et-sukkat David ha-nofelet ”In that day I will raise up the fallen tent/booth of David”	sukkah = a temporary shelter/hut, deliberately humbler than bayit (house/dynasty) — signaling the Davidic dynasty’s ruined, humbled state before its promised restoration ”I will raise up the booth/tent/tabernacle of David that has fallen”	THE central textual anchor for doctrine 5 (Restoration of David’s Fallen Tent / Messianic Hope). Quoted directly in Acts 15:16-17 by James at the Jerusalem Council as scriptural warrant for Gentile inclusion in the restored Davidic kingdom through Christ — this single Amos verse is a direct canonical bridge from OT restoration hope to NT fulfillment in Jesus, Son of David	NEW TERM — “lub tsev pheeb suab ntawm Daviv uas vau lawm.” Critical risk. Two disambiguation points required: (1) sukkah (temporary hut/booth) must not be flattened into the grander bayit (permanent house/palace) — the humbling imagery (a fallen hut, not a fallen palace) is theologically deliberate, emphasizing the dynasty’s ruin before restoration; (2) must be explicitly connected forward to the baseline’s already-fixed “Son of God” (Leej Tub ntawm Vajtswv), “heir” (tus qub txeeg qub teg), and “kingdom of God” (lub Nceeg Vaj ntawm Vajtswv) entries so curriculum content correctly frames this as messianic hope fulfilled in Christ, the promised heir of David, and does not leave it as a bare political-restoration promise
I will rebuild it as in the days of old וּבְנִיתִיהָ כִּימֵי עוֹלָם u-venitiha ki-mei olam ”and I will build/rebuild it as in the days of old”	restoration to a former glorious state, not mere repair ”I will rebuild it as in the days of old”	Restoration is explicitly patterned on the united-monarchy golden age under David, projected forward into messianic fulfillment	”kuv yuav kho dua tshiab, thooj li thaum ub” — High risk (shares the restoration doctrine’s weight); must be taught in continuity with, not replacement of, the Davidic covenant promises (2 Samuel 7)
that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name לְמַעַן יִירְשׁוּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִית אֱדוֹם וְכָל־הַגּוֹיִם lema’an yirshu et-she’erit Edom ve-khol-ha-goyim ”that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations”	extension of restored Davidic dominion to include the Gentile nations previously judged in ch.1 — a direct textual bridge to Gentile inclusion, foundational to the Acts 15 citation ”that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by my name”	Restoration is explicitly international in scope, not narrowly nationalistic — anticipates the NT gospel’s extension to “all nations” (cf. baseline’s “nations_gentiles” doctrinal thread in Romans 9-11)	Reuses baseline “cov seem” (remnant) and “lwm Haiv Neeg” (nations) — High risk, doctrinally load-bearing bridge between Amos and the baseline’s Romans 9-11 “Future of Israel” material; cross-reference note required
I will plant them upon their land, and they shall never again be uprooted וּנְטַעְתִּים עַל־אַדְמָתָם וְלֹא יִנָּתְשׁוּ עוֹד u-neta’tim al-admatam ve-lo yinnatshu od ”and I will plant them on their land, and they shall not again be uprooted”	agricultural permanence-of-restoration imagery, closing the book on an irreversible note of hope ”I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be uprooted”	Final verse of the book; establishes the restoration/messianic hope as permanent and irrevocable, echoing (in agrarian rather than legal idiom) the baseline’s “irrevocable covenant calling” language already fixed for Romans 11:29	NEW TERM — “kuv yuav cog lawv rau saum lawv thaj av, thiab yuav tsis muab lawv dob dua li lawm.” Low-Medium risk; strong positive agrarian resonance (planting/permanence highly meaningful in a Hmong farming context), no traditional-religion collision, but should be cross-referenced with the baseline’s “grafted olive tree” and Romans 11:29 irrevocable-calling language for doctrinal consistency across the curriculum library
an ever-flowing stream of new wine (mountains dripping sweet wine) וְהִטִּיפוּ הֶהָרִים עָסִיס ve-hittifu he-harim asis ”the mountains shall drip with sweet wine”	abundance/blessing imagery marking restored covenant fertility (9:13) “the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it”	Reverses the famine/locust/drought judgment imagery of chs.4,7,8 into an eschatological abundance, forming an inclusio with the “ever-flowing stream” of justice in the core passage (5:24)	“tej roob yuav muaj cawv txiv hmab ntws saum roob” — Low-Medium risk; agrarian abundance imagery, positive resonance, should be taught alongside 5:24’s flowing-stream justice imagery as a deliberate structural echo (judgment’s absence of justice reversed into restoration’s overflow of blessing)

---

§3. Cross-Book Doctrinal Term Map (Summary)

Doctrine	Primary Load-Bearing Terms	Chapters
Social Justice and Care for the Poor	mishpat (justice), tzedakah (righteousness, ethical sense), poor/needy cluster (ani/dal/evyon), oppress/crush (ashaq/ratzatz), dishonest scales	2, 4, 5, 8
Judgment on Empty Religious Ritual	feasts/assemblies (chag/atzerah), burnt/grain/peace offerings (olah/minchah/shelem), songs/harps, horns of the altar, Bethel wordplay	3, 4, 5
God’s Sovereignty over All Nations	oracles against the nations (ch.1-2), pesha (rebellion), LORD of hosts, Cushites/exodus-of-nations (9:7)	1, 2, 4, 9
The Day of the Lord as Judgment	yom YHWH, darkness/gloom, “I will not pass by again,” day of calamity, sun at noon	5, 6, 7, 8
The Restoration of David’s Fallen Tent (Messianic Hope)	sukkat David, rebuild as of old, remnant of Edom/all nations, planting/never uprooted	9

---

§4. Governing Cross-Reference

This document extends, and does not contradict, the baseline Romans Hmong Language Package. Every term already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json is reused verbatim above (God = Vajtswv; Lord = tus Tswv; sin = txhaum/kev txhaum; wrath of God = kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv; idol = dab mlom; righteousness = Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees/tus ncaj ncees, with an explicit sense-disambiguation note for its OT ethical use; nations/Gentiles = lwm Haiv Neeg; remnant = cov seem; mercy = txoj kev khuv leej; hope = kev cia siab; election/choose = kev xaiv (Vajtswv xaiv raws li nws lub siab nyiam); power = hwjchim, always qualified Vajtswv hwjchim; creation = tej uas raug tsim los; worship/serve cultic = pehawm/pab teev; kingdom of God = lub Nceeg Vaj ntawm Vajtswv; heir = tus qub txeeg qub teg; Israel = cov Yixalayees). All new terms proposed above (Yawmsaub for YHWH; Hnub ntawm Yawmsaub for the Day of the LORD; mishpat/justice as kev txiav txim ncaj; the offering-category triad; sukkat David; etc.) are logged for formal TM-revision review before publication, per baseline §2 rule 4 and §9’s escalation table.