Genesis — Linguistic Gap Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Purpose, Method, and Governing Constraints

This document executes PRD Phase 1 Step 8 for the Genesis curriculum. It answers three linked questions for every doctrine in scope:

1. What Hmong vocabulary already exists (inherited from the Romans Baseline TM, or newly surfaced in analysis/08_core_glossary.md §B and assets/bible_term_registry.json) that can carry the doctrine’s key terms?
2. Where does that vocabulary create risk — either because the semantic neighborhood is crowded (one Hmong word/root is already asked to carry multiple, doctrinally distinct senses) or because a needed concept is simply missing from ordinary Hmong religious vocabulary?
3. What is the recommended fencing/disambiguation strategy, and does the term belong to the transliteration stream or the paraphrase/periphrasis stream?

Hard constraints inherited without exception:

• Every Romans-TM fixed rendering (Vajtswv, tus Tswv, Vaj Ntsuj Plig, txiaj ntsim, kev cawm dim, kev xaiv, Txoj Kevcai ntawm Vajtswv/Mauxes, raug suav tias ncaj ncees, hwjchim → Vajtswv hwjchim, etc.) is reused character-for-character; this document proposes zero alternate renderings for those items.
• “Yawm Saub”/“Saub” is PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN for any divine referent in Genesis, per the standing prohibition already recorded in 08_core_glossary.md and the Genesis term registry. This prohibition is the single most important addition this book makes to the Romans baseline’s forbidden-substitutions framework, because Genesis 1-2 (creation) and 6-9 (flood) are the two passages in the entire Hmong Bible most exposed to syncretistic fusion with indigenous Hmong creation-and-flood mythology.
• Full-book coverage is mandatory: §5 below logs every chapter 1-50, including chapters that contribute no new lexical gap, as explicitly “reviewed.”

---

1. Doctrine Vocabulary Matrix

#	Doctrine	Available Hmong Terms (source)	Weaknesses / Gaps	Recommended Strategy
1	Creation Ex Nihilo	tsim (bara, G1/#6); ua / tsim los ntawm (tej yam uas twb muaj lawm) (asah, G2/#7); Vaj Ntsuj Plig ntawm Vajtswv nyob saum dej (#3); tsis muaj tsim txheej tsis muaj qauv (tohu wa-bohu, #8); dej thu (tehom, #9); lub teeb loj / lub teeb me (sun/moon demotion, #11)	Hmong has no single verb pair distinguishing “create from nothing” vs. “make from existing material” — ordinary usage would default to one verb (ua or tsim) for both, silently erasing the ex nihilo claim. Hmong oral cosmology (Yawm Saub narratives) contains creator-shaping-from-primal-substance motifs that a collapsed verb pair would reinforce rather than correct.	Maintain the structural two-verb fence (tsim reserved for #6/G1 contexts only; ua/tsim los ntawm... for #7/G2 contexts) as a permanent lexical rule, not a stylistic preference. Every first occurrence in a lesson must carry a footnote stating explicitly that 1:1 asserts absolute origin — no prior material, no rival substance, no pre-existing chaos-deity.
2	The Image of God	(raug tsim raws li Vajtswv) tus duab (tselem, G6/#18); zoo li (Vajtswv) (demuth, G7/#19); poj sab txiv sab, nws tsim ob tug (#21)	duab is the everyday Hmong word for “image/shadow/portrait” and is also the word for a person’s folk shadow-soul (believed capable of being lost, frightened away, or stolen by spirits, and requiring ritual retrieval). Bare duab risks being heard as “a fragment of Vajtswv’s own soul-substance dwells in each person” (an emanationist/animistic reading) rather than “each person bears God’s appointed representative likeness.”	The qualifying clause (raug tsim raws li Vajtswv) is never optional, at every single occurrence, functioning exactly like the mandatory qualifiers already enforced in the Romans baseline (hwjchim → Vajtswv hwjchim). A dedicated teaching note must state: dignity/representation/moral-rational likeness, not an emanated soul-particle. Never pair tus duab with folk-soul-retrieval vocabulary (hu plig) in any teaching context.
3	The Fall and the Origin of Sin	nab (nachash, #25); foom tsis zoo (arar/qalal, #26); txhaum / kev txhaum (#28, reused from Romans TM); noob (zera, #27); tsoos tsho tawv tsiaj (#29)	(a) foom is the exact verb for shamanic ritual cursing, which in Hmong practice is reversible through counter-ritual (rho/tso foom); rendering God’s judicial curse with the bare verb invites hearers to look for a ritual remedy rather than the promised Seed. (b) Snakes carry ambivalent, sometimes power-laden associations in regional folk religion. (c) txhaum alone (already High risk in the Romans baseline) still tends toward a reparable-social-fault reading rather than inherited, God-ward guilt.	foom tsis zoo must always appear with an explicit teaching note that this curse is a righteous, non-negotiable judicial verdict, remedied only by the promised Seed (3:15) — never by counter-ritual. nab is rendered plainly (a real animal used by a real tempter) with the spiritual-identity question deferred to a footnote, not resolved by inventing a more “spiritual-sounding” word. txhaum in Genesis 3-4 must be taught, per the Romans-baseline convention, as the narrative origin of the objective guilt-condition Paul assumes in Romans 5:12-19.
4	The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise	Vajtswv txoj kev cog lus (brit, G15/#33); lus cog tseg (promise, Romans TM, reused #42); txiav (ua) kev cog lus (karat brit, #35); kev txiav (raws li kev cog lus ntawm Vajtswv thiab Anplahas) (brit milah, G17/#36); noob (zera, #27); lub cim ntawm txoj kev cog lus (oth, #34)	(a) Hmong has no native lexical distinction between a solemn one-sided assurance (lus cog tseg) and a formal, ratified, sign-bearing bilateral-form pact — brit had to be built as a compound, and there is real risk that lessons will use lus cog tseg and Vajtswv txoj kev cog lus interchangeably, flattening covenant into mere promise. (b) The Romans-baseline circumcision qualifier is chronologically anachronistic in Genesis (predates Moses by centuries) and must not be silently reused unmodified. (c) The “cutting a covenant” ritual (Gen 15) genuinely resembles Hmong blood-oath/animal-sacrifice pacts with ancestral spirits — a partial bridge that is also a real collision risk if read as a bargain between two equal spirit-parties.	Enforce Vajtswv txoj kev cog lus vs. lus cog tseg as lexically distinct, never substituted for one another within the same lesson. Genesis-specific circumcision qualifier (kev txiav (raws li kev cog lus ntawm Vajtswv thiab Anplahas)) is confirmed as the correct Genesis-context rendering; Romans/NT circumcision contexts retain the original Mosaic qualifier — this is a permanent bifurcation, not an inconsistency. Gen 15:9-18’s “cutting” ceremony requires [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] fencing language (already flagged in the registry) to make explicit that God alone, not Abram, passes between the pieces — a sovereign self-obligation, not a mutual spirit-bargain.
5	Providence and the Sovereignty of God	tus Tswv nrog nraim (X) (providential-presence formula, G29/#56); npau suav (dream, G28/#55); Vajtswv siab zoo, thiaj ua kom tshwm los ua qhov zoo (50:20 capstone, G31/#57); kev xaiv (Vajtswv xaiv raws li nws lub siab nyiam) (election, reused #60); Vajtswv uas pom (El Roi, #59)	The single largest collision risk in the whole curriculum: Hmong cosmology’s impersonal fate/fortune concept (hmoov) is the “obvious,” idiomatically natural way to talk about why some people prosper and others suffer across a whole life narrative (Joseph). Any drift toward hmoov-adjacent phrasing anywhere in the Joseph cycle or the Jacob/Esau election narrative collapses personal divine sovereignty into impersonal fatalism, exactly the collision the Romans baseline already permanently forbids for eklogē.	hmoov vocabulary remains permanently forbidden for every providence/sovereignty formula in Genesis, with zero contextual exceptions, matching the Romans-baseline enforcement pattern. The 50:20 formula must be taught holding two propositions simultaneously and never resolving the tension by dropping either: the brothers’ sin was genuinely evil (named phem), and God’s purpose was genuinely, sovereignly good — this is a structural parallel to the mandatory both/and framing already required for Romans 9:19-23.
6	Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace	txiaj ntsim dav dav rau ib tsoom neeg (common grace, G33/#45); khoom fij (qorban/minchah, G34/#48); kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath, reused); dab mlom (idol, reused, #66); kev nyiam ua nruj ua tsiv (chamas, #31)	(a) txiaj ntsim (Critical, reserved for saving grace) and the new common-grace category-term share the same root; without the mandatory qualifier phrase, lessons risk teaching that God’s temporal kindness to unbelievers (garments of skin, Cain’s line’s culture-building, the Noahic covenant with “all flesh”) is salvific in the same sense as 6:8’s grace to Noah, blurring particular/saving grace with universal/temporal grace. (b) khoom fij reuses the Romans-baseline’s already-Critical sacrificial-offering root, shared with shamanic spirit-appeasement offerings (fij dab); Cain and Abel’s differing offerings risk being read as a lesson in ritual technique rather than heart-faith (cf. Heb 11:4).	txiaj ntsim dav dav rau ib tsoom neeg is a mandatory atomic qualifier phrase, enforced with the same zero-exception structural rule as the Romans baseline’s other qualifier pairs; never shortened to bare txiaj ntsim in a common-grace context. khoom fij in the Cain/Abel narrative must always carry an explicit heart/faith teaching note and must never imply that offering the “correct” ritual form (rather than faith) is what secured Abel’s acceptance.
7	Covenant Faithfulness across Generations	keeb kwm / cov xeeb ntxwv (toledot, #63); taug kev nrog Vajtswv (walked with God, G20/#52); koob hmoov (foom lus koob hmoov, cog rau kev cog lus ntawm Vajtswv) (berakhah, G23/#38); feem thawj tug (birthright, G22/#37); Vajtswv yuav tuaj saib nej thiab coj nej mus (paqad, G32/#58)	(a) koob hmoov is simultaneously (i) the Romans-baseline’s permanently reserved, non-grace term for ordinary material blessing, and (ii) the natural Hmong word for a solemn, binding spoken blessing-pronouncement (berakhah), which culturally can be manipulated as an independent ritual formula (cf. foom koob hmoov performed by a shaman/elder) — a genuine bridge but also a genuine risk of implying the patriarchal blessing operates independently of God’s sovereign will. (b) taug kev nrog Vajtswv risks ambiguity with idioms of communing with ancestor spirits if the nrog Vajtswv anchor is ever dropped.	koob hmoov for berakhah must always carry the full compound qualifier (foom lus koob hmoov, cog rau kev cog lus ntawm Vajtswv) — never the bare word — reinforcing that the blessing operates within, not independently of, God’s covenant will (Isaac’s blessing of Jacob cannot be reversed by human regret, 27:33-38, precisely because it is God’s purpose being spoken, not a free-standing magic formula). taug kev nrog Vajtswv must never drop its nrog Vajtswv anchor, on the same enforcement model as pehawm Vajtswv.
8	Joseph and God’s Providence in Suffering	tus Tswv nrog nraim (Joseej) (#56); Vajtswv siab zoo, thiaj ua kom tshwm los ua qhov zoo (#57); kev zam txim (forgiveness, G30/#50); npau suav (dream, #55); cov seem (remnant, reused, #71)	(a) kev zam txim has no prior Romans-baseline entry and no exact indigenous social-practice equivalent: ordinary Hmong clan reconciliation customarily expects visible restitution or compensatory payment before relational restoration is granted; Joseph’s forgiveness is unilateral and gracious, prior to and apart from any restitution his brothers offer. (b) The providential-presence formula risks being flattened into “nothing bad really happened to him” triumphalism if the real, unresolved injustice (slavery, false accusation, years of imprisonment) is minimized in retelling.	kev zam txim must be explicitly taught as flowing from the same unmerited-grace logic already Critical in doctrine 3 (Grace and Salvation), not from ordinary Hmong reconciliation etiquette requiring restitution — this is a genuinely new doctrinal-linguistic bridge requiring its own teaching note, not a reuse of an existing safe term. The presence-formula (tus Tswv nrog nraim) must always be taught as operating through, not around, real and unresolved-in-the-moment suffering.

---

2. Missing Vocabulary vs. Crowded Semantic Neighborhoods

2.1 Crowded semantic neighborhoods requiring active fencing

These are Hmong lexical roots that Genesis is forced to reuse across multiple, doctrinally distinct senses. Each requires an explicit, permanent fencing rule; none may be resolved by inventing a wholesale new word (which would sever continuity with existing Hmong Christian usage), and none may be left unfenced.

Hmong root	Competing senses forced onto it in Genesis	Fencing rule
duab (image/shadow/portrait)	(1) Image of God, doctrinal (#18); (2) ordinary photographic/pictorial sense; (3) folk shadow-soul vulnerable to spirit-theft	Sense (1) NEVER appears without the qualifying clause (raug tsim raws li Vajtswv); senses (2)/(3) must never be invoked in the same teaching unit as sense (1) without an explicit contrast note.
fij (sacrificial/offering domain)	(1) Cain/Abel general offering (#48); (2) Noah’s post-flood burnt offering; (3) Isaac’s binding, typological burnt offering (#49); (4) the Romans-baseline’s living-sacrifice ethics (khoom fij uas muaj txoj sia nyob); (5) Christ’s unique atonement (qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum); (6) shamanic spirit-appeasement offerings (fij dab)	Every occurrence must be marked as belonging to exactly one of: (a) Old Covenant typological forerunner, (b) NT ethical-devotional reuse, or (c) Christ’s unrepeatable atonement — never left ambiguous, and never allowed to imply that ritual correctness itself (rather than faith/heart posture) secures divine favor.
foom (spoken performative utterance — curse or blessing)	(1) God’s judicial curse (foom tsis zoo, #26); (2) patriarchal covenantal blessing (foom lus koob hmoov, #38); (3) ordinary shamanic ritual cursing and its ritual reversal	Curse-sense and blessing-sense must never be confused with each other, and neither may ever be taught as reversible by human ritual technique — God’s foom (whether curse or blessing) is a sovereign judicial or covenantal act, not a manipulable spoken formula.
dawb huv (holy/pure)	(1) The Sabbath day set apart (#16, hnub dawb huv); (2) Romans-baseline sanctification, moral transformation (kev raug ua kom dawb huv); (3) folk ritual purity from spirit-contamination	Genesis’s day-sanctification sense (Sabbath) must be taught as a different application of the same root from the moral-transformation sense in Romans 6 — a time-set-apart, not a person’s character — and neither sense may be read as ritual-cleansing repeatable by folk practice.
kevcai (custom/rite root, embedded in “Txoj Kevcai” and “kev txiav”)	(1) Mosaic Law (Romans baseline, always qualified); (2) Abrahamic-covenant circumcision, pre-Mosaic (#36, Genesis-specific qualifier); (3) generic ancestral religious custom (kev cai dab qhuas)	Genesis circumcision must use the Genesis-specific qualifier (raws li kev cog lus ntawm Vajtswv thiab Anplahas), never the Romans Mosaic qualifier, to avoid a chronological/theological anachronism; both remain distinct from generic ancestral-custom usage.
hmoov (fate/fortune) and koob hmoov (blessing/fortune)	(1) PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN for election/providence/sovereignty formulas (Romans baseline, reinforced here for 50:20 and Jacob/Esau); (2) permitted, reserved sense for ordinary material blessing (#51); (3) the natural word for performative patriarchal blessing (#38, requiring the mandatory compound qualifier)	Three-way fence: forbidden for doctrine, permitted bare for ordinary prosperity, permitted only with mandatory qualifier for covenantal spoken blessing. This is the single most heavily overloaded root in the entire Genesis package and the highest-vigilance item for quality review.
ntsuj plig / nephesh family	(1) Human anthropological spirit-soul (Romans baseline, never Vaj-prefixed, #24); (2) animal “living creature” (tus nyob muaj sia, G9/#12, FORBIDDEN from ntsuj plig vocabulary); (3) the Holy Spirit (Vaj Ntsuj Plig, always prefixed); (4) the one-time animating breath-act on Adam (cua pa ua rau muaj txoj sia, G10/#14, FORBIDDEN from both ntsuj plig and Vaj Ntsuj Plig)	Four distinct referents, three distinct required renderings, with two of the four (animal life-principle, Adam’s breath-act) explicitly barred from the soul/Spirit vocabulary family altogether — this is a zero-tolerance fencing rule inherited and intensified from the Romans baseline.

2.2 Missing vocabulary (genuine lexical gaps, not collisions)

These concepts have no existing Hmong theological vocabulary at all — neither a safe existing word nor a collision-prone one — and require constructed periphrasis, logged as provisional TM-revision candidates rather than treated as settled:

Missing concept	Why no native term exists	Provisional strategy
Ex nihilo vs. ex materia distinction (bara/asah)	Hmong verbs for “make” do not lexically encode a source-material distinction the way Hebrew’s two verbs do	Constructed two-term fence (tsim vs. ua/tsim los ntawm...), see §1 row 1
Formal, bilateral, sign-ratified covenant as distinct from a one-sided promise	Hmong customary agreements (bride-price negotiations, clan pacts) do not have a single word distinguishing “solemn pledge” from “ratified, sign-bearing covenant”	Compound phrase Vajtswv txoj kev cog lus, kept lexically distinct from lus cog tseg
Common grace as a theological category (universal, non-salvific divine kindness)	No existing Hmong Christian catechetical vocabulary distinguishes this from saving grace; folk religion has no equivalent category (spirits/ancestors are typically appeased for particular, transactional favor, not credited with universal impartial kindness)	Compound phrase with mandatory qualifier, txiaj ntsim dav dav rau ib tsoom neeg, see §1 row 6
Federal/representative headship (Adam’s sin imputed to all)	Already flagged High risk in the Romans baseline (#42, “original_sin_adam_christ_typology”); Genesis 3 is its narrative point of origin and inherits the same gap	Reuse Romans-baseline strategy: no lexical fix exists; mandatory dedicated teaching note at every occurrence, esp. Gen 3 and Gen 5 (genealogical death-refrain)
Unilateral, restitution-independent forgiveness (Joseph, 45:1-15, 50:15-21)	Hmong customary reconciliation practice expects visible restitution/compensatory payment prior to relational restoration	New term kev zam txim, explicitly taught as flowing from the Critical grace-doctrine logic, not ordinary clan reconciliation etiquette, see §1 row 8
Absolute (non-cyclical) beginning of time (bereshit)	Hmong cosmological time-language has no fixed technical term contrasting an absolute origin-point against a cyclical or relative one	Plain phrase thaum chivkeeb, comprehension-level gap only, with a teaching note distinguishing it from cyclical/relative beginnings in regional cosmogonies
Sun/moon as demoted created objects rather than deities (1:14-19)	Regional and Hmong folk practice can accord ritual/spiritual significance to celestial bodies; Hebrew’s own deliberate avoidance of shemesh/yareach has no natural Hmong parallel avoidance-strategy	Functional descriptive phrase lub teeb loj / lub teeb me (already in the registry), with mandatory anti-idolatry teaching note preserving Genesis’s own demotion polemic rather than silently normalizing it away

---

3. Transliteration vs. Paraphrase Decisions

Genesis introduces a much larger volume of proper names and place-names than Romans required. The following decision framework governs every such item:

3.1 Governing principle

Follow existing Hmong Bible translation tradition (Vaj Lug Kub Npaiv Npaum / HWB) for all personal and place names wherever an established transliteration already exists in that tradition (e.g., Mauxes for Moses, already fixed in the Romans baseline’s Law entry). Where this analysis cannot confirm the established HWB form with certainty, the item is flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] rather than guessed — consistent with the Romans baseline’s escalation rule for uncertain terms (12_ai_translation_requirements.md §9).

3.2 Transliterate (proper names, titles with no translatable semantic content)

• Vajtswv, tus Tswv, Yexus Khetos, Mauxes — already fixed, reused unchanged.
• Anplahas (Abraham), Yakhauj (Jacob), Yauxej (Joseph), Adas (Adam, already used in the core glossary) — patriarchal proper names, transliterated per established Hmong Bible tradition convention; each requires confirmation against the HWB source text before permanent adoption and is logged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm HWB spelling] where this document cannot independently verify the exact established orthography.
• Sailoj (Shiloh, G/#39) — transliterated with a mandatory Messianic footnote, per the core glossary’s existing decision; deliberately restrained beyond that footnote, consistent with this curriculum’s scope.
• Yixalayees (Israel) — reused from the Romans baseline’s national-collective term, but the individual renaming event (32:28; 35:10) requires a first-occurrence explanatory footnote distinguishing Jacob’s personal new name from the later national identity, per the core glossary’s existing decision (G27/#64). This is a paraphrase-plus-transliteration hybrid, not a pure transliteration.

3.3 Paraphrase / periphrasis (theological terms with no single-word Hmong equivalent)

• tselem/demuth (image/likeness) — paraphrased as a qualified compound, never transliterated, because the doctrine requires active disambiguation from the folk shadow-soul sense that a loanword would not resolve.
• brit (covenant) — paraphrased as Vajtswv txoj kev cog lus rather than transliterated, because a loanword would be doctrinally opaque to hearers and would forfeit the deliberate lexical continuity with the existing lus cog tseg (promise) root that allows the promise/covenant contrast to be taught at all.
• nephesh chayyah (living creature) — paraphrased (tus nyob muaj sia), never given a soul-family loanword, precisely to keep it out of the crowded ntsuj plig neighborhood (§2.1).
• Common grace, birthright, and forgiveness (§2.2) — all paraphrased as compound descriptive phrases; no single Hmong word exists and none is invented.

3.4 Explicit non-transliteration decision (standing prohibition)

Yawm Saub/Saub is never used, transliterated, alluded to, or echoed as a stylistic device for God, the Spirit, or any divine title in Genesis 1-2 or 6-9, regardless of any surface-level narrative resemblance (creator figure; flood-and-survivor pattern). This is a paraphrase-only zone by permanent prohibition, not a case-by-case judgment call.

3.5 Items still requiring transliteration/orthography confirmation before publication

• Exact standard Hmong lexical item for “rainbow” (the covenant sign, 9:12-17) — flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] in the registry (#34); not resolved in this document.
• Precise phrasing for “cutting a covenant” ceremonial imagery (15:9-18) that preserves ritual vividness without implying a mutual spirit-pact — flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] in the registry (#35); not resolved in this document.
• HWB-standard spellings for all patriarchal and place names not already confirmed in the Romans baseline (see §3.2) — flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm HWB spelling] collectively, to be resolved in a dedicated Phase 2 name-orthography pass rather than guessed here.

---

4. Ranked List of Highest-Risk Ambiguities

Ranked by combined severity of (a) doctrinal centrality and (b) specificity/strength of the competing traditional-religion referent, consistent with the Critical/High/Medium/Low tier definitions inherited from assets/bible_term_registry.json.

1. Creation-and-flood syncretism with “Yawm Saub” (Creation Ex Nihilo; Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace via the Noahic covenant) — Critical. The single highest-risk ambiguity in the book: an indigenous supreme-being/flood-survivor narrative already occupies the exact narrative slot Genesis 1-2 and 6-9 fill, creating maximal syncretism pressure. Mitigation: standing prohibition (§0), enforced with zero exceptions.
2. tselem/duab vs. the folk shadow-soul concept (The Image of God) — Critical. Duab is unavoidable (it is the only natural Hmong word for “image/likeness”) and simultaneously the exact word for a spirit-vulnerable shadow-soul; the qualifying clause is the only defense and must never be dropped, including in space-constrained contexts (headers, quiz options), matching the Romans-baseline enforcement model for hwjchim.
3. bara/asah verb collapse eroding Creation Ex Nihilo — Critical. Without active, structural maintenance of the two-verb fence, the doctrine that God created from nothing — as opposed to shaping pre-existing divine or chaotic substance, the dominant pattern in regional cosmogonies — silently disappears from the text with no visible red flag, making this an unusually easy doctrine to lose by omission rather than by active mistranslation.
4. 50:20 “God meant it for good” drifting into hmoov-fatalism (Providence and the Sovereignty of God; Joseph and God’s Providence in Suffering) — Critical. This is the capstone verse of the entire book and the doctrinal double-anchor for two of the eight assigned doctrines; any resolution of the moral-guilt/divine-purpose tension in either direction (denying real guilt, or denying real sovereign purpose) breaks the doctrine, and Hmong’s natural idiom for “things happen for a reason” is precisely the forbidden fatalistic register.
5. foom (curse) and its shamanic-ritual reversibility (The Fall and the Origin of Sin) — Critical. Because Hmong ritual practice actively provides a procedure for removing a foom, this is not merely a comprehension gap but an active invitation to seek a ritual remedy for God’s judicial curse, a category error the Protoevangelium (3:15) is specifically designed to correct through promise, not ritual.
6. brit/covenant flattening into lus cog tseg/promise (The Abrahamic Covenant and Promise) — Critical. Because both phrases share the cog lus root and are near-synonyms in casual usage, this is the ambiguity most likely to be silently lost through stylistic variation by well-meaning lesson writers seeking to “avoid repetition” — a direct violation of the Romans baseline’s no-stylistic-variation rule for fixed collocations, now extended to this new pair.
7. khoom fij across Cain/Abel, Noah, Isaac’s binding, living-sacrifice ethics, and Christ’s atonement (Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace; typological threads into multiple doctrines) — Critical. Five distinct theological referents on one crowded root create high risk of doctrinal blending, particularly the risk of teaching Cain/Abel as a ritual-technique lesson rather than a heart/faith lesson (cf. Heb 11:4).
8. koob hmoov across three registers (forbidden/permitted/qualifier-mandatory) (Covenant Faithfulness across Generations; Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace) — High. The most heavily overloaded single lexical item in the package; the risk is not doctrinal collision in any one use but cross-contamination between uses if the mandatory qualifier is ever dropped in the berakhah (patriarchal blessing) sense.
9. kev zam txim (forgiveness) vs. restitution-based clan reconciliation norms (Joseph and God’s Providence in Suffering) — High. A newly-coined term with no prior baseline anchor and no exact indigenous social-practice equivalent; the risk is under-teaching rather than active collision, but the doctrinal stakes (unmerited forgiveness as a narrative echo of unmerited grace) are high.
10. nachash (serpent) and regional snake-spirit associations (The Fall and the Origin of Sin) — High. Lower severity than items above because the text’s plain narrative sense is renderable without collision, but the teaching note distinguishing “a real animal used by a real tempter” from “an object of ritual power to be feared or managed” is not optional and must not be assumed self-evident to the audience.
11. tus tub txib ntawm Vajtswv (Angel/Messenger of the LORD) vs. generic ancestral/nature spirit-messengers (Providence and the Sovereignty of God; Abrahamic Covenant narratives at 16, 18-19, 22, 32) — High. Genuine collision risk since Hmong tradition recognizes intermediary spirit-messengers; mitigated but not eliminated by the mandatory ntawm Vajtswv anchor.
12. dawb huv applied to the Sabbath day (2:2-3) vs. its Romans-baseline moral-transformation sense — High. Lower narrative weight than items 1-9 but a real risk of hearers assimilating the creation-ordinance Sabbath into folk ritual-purity practice if the distinction from Romans 6’s sanctification sense is not actively taught in both directions.

---

5. Full-Book Chapter Coverage Log

Every chapter of Genesis is logged below per the full-book-coverage mandate. Chapters contributing no new lexical gap beyond what is already fenced above are marked “Reviewed — no new gap” rather than omitted.

Chapters	Coverage status
1	Covered — Creation Ex Nihilo core terms (bara/asah, tohu wa-bohu, tehom, raqia, sun/moon demotion, nephesh chayyah, min); Image of God core terms (tselem, demuth, dominion mandate, male/female). See §1 rows 1-2.
2	Covered — dust/aphar, Sabbath rest, day sanctification (dawb huv crowded neighborhood), breath of life (nishmat chayyim), one-flesh marriage union (neutral-flesh reuse), helper-corresponding-to-him. See §1 rows 1-2, §2.1.
3	Covered — The Fall core terms: serpent, curse, seed/zera (Protoevangelium), sin’s first naming, garments of skin (common grace’s earliest instance), shame (txaj muag, reused). See §1 row 3.
4	Covered — Cain/Abel offering (khoom fij, crowded fij neighborhood), indwelling-sin personification, curse (Cain), earliest common-grace culture-building (Cain’s line). See §1 rows 3, 6.
5	Reviewed — genealogical toledot refrain and “walked with God” idiom (Enoch); death refrain reinforcing Romans 5:12’s narrative source; no new gap beyond §1 row 7 and existing Romans-baseline death entry.
6	Covered — Noah found grace (chen/chanan, direct reuse of Critical grace entry); violence/chamas; wrath of God intensified flood-collision risk (Yawm Saub, §4 item 1); covenant (brit) first named (6:18). See §1 rows 5-6, §4 item 1.
7	Reviewed — Noah’s relative righteousness (“righteous in his generation,” reused Romans-baseline righteousness entry with the forensic-priority teaching note preserved); flood-collision risk continues, no new lexical gap.
8	Reviewed — burnt offering after the flood (khoom fij, extends §1 row 6/§2.1 fij neighborhood); no new gap.
9	Covered — Noahic covenant with “all flesh” (common grace, §1 row 6); covenant sign/oth (rainbow, flagged for orthography confirmation, §3.5); dominion mandate reaffirmed (9:1-7); Ham/Canaan curse extends the foom fencing rule (§2.1).
10	Reviewed — Table of Nations; nations/Gentiles term reused (#61); no new lexical gap, structural genealogical device only.
11	Covered — Babel confusion of languages (kev sib cais lus), illustrating common grace as restraining judgment; toledot structuring formula continues. See §1 row 6, registry #65.
12	Covered — Abrahamic call and promise (lus cog tseg); nations/Gentiles in view (12:3); berakhah performative-blessing first appearance (koob hmoov crowded neighborhood, §2.1, §4 item 8); ordinary material blessing sense also present.
13-14	Reviewed — covenant-promise land narrative continues (lus cog tseg); no new lexical gap beyond §1 row 4.
15	Covered — the single most important cross-book textual link in the curriculum: faith reckoned as righteousness (15:6, direct Romans 4 source text, §1 row 4/Section A of core glossary #40-41); formal covenant-cutting ceremony (karat brit, §1 row 4, §3.5); promise reaffirmed.
16	Covered — Angel/Messenger of the LORD (§4 item 11); El Roi (“the God who sees,” early common-grace/providence witness outside the covenant line, #59).
17	Covered — covenant formally named and signed (brit; circumcision as Abrahamic-covenant sign, Genesis-specific qualifier, §1 row 4, §2.1 kevcai neighborhood); “walked with God” idiom reused.
18-19	Covered — Angel/Messenger of the LORD continues; mercy/intercession (Abraham for Sodom, reused Romans-baseline mercy entry); wrath of God (Sodom judgment, reused #31); fear-of-God idiom’s contrast case (Sodom’s absence of it); remnant (Lot’s household, precursor sense, #71).
20	Reviewed — sin/adultery-adjacent narrative (Abimelech); fear-of-God (yir’at Elohim, reverent-awe sense, #53); no new lexical gap beyond §1 row 5.
21	Reviewed — promise fulfilled (Isaac’s birth); heir terminology reused (#43); no new gap.
22	Covered — the Abrahamic Covenant’s typological climax: testing (nasah, §1 row 4/#54); burnt offering (olah, distinct from general qorban/minchah, direct typological forerunner of the Critical propitiation entry, §2.1); seed/zera Messianic weight reaffirmed (22:17-18); Angel of the LORD.
23	Reviewed — Sarah’s burial and land-purchase narrative; no new theological-lexical gap; reinforces death/mortality vocabulary already fenced.
24	Reviewed — “walked with God” idiom extended to a servant’s speech (24:40); ordinary material blessing (koob hmoov, permitted sense) present; no new gap.
25	Covered — Election/choice (Jacob and Esau, direct OT source for Romans 9:11-13, §1 row 5/#60, §4 item 4 forward-link); birthright (bekhorah, §1 row 7/#37); toledot formula continues.
26	Reviewed — Isaac/Abimelech peace narrative (kev thaj yeeb, reused); covenant/promise reaffirmed to Isaac; “the LORD was with him”-adjacent formula (26:3,28) extends the providential-presence fence (§1 row 5).
27	Covered — birthright and performative covenantal blessing collide narratively (Jacob’s deception; Isaac’s blessing cannot be reversed once spoken, §1 row 7/§4 item 8); election doctrine’s outworking continues.
28	Reviewed — Jacob’s ladder-dream (npau suav, reused, revelatory-dream vehicle continues into the patriarchal narratives ahead of its dominant Joseph-cycle use); covenant promise renewed to Jacob; no new lexical gap.
29-30	Reviewed — Jacob’s marriages and sons’ births; ordinary material blessing (koob hmoov, permitted sense) recurs; no new theological-lexical gap.
31	Covered — household idols/teraphim (dab mlom, reused idol entry, #66) — important as evidence of syncretism within the covenant family itself, reinforcing Sin’s Consequences doctrine’s scope.
32	Covered — Jacob’s individual renaming to Israel (Yisrael, §1 row 7/#64, requiring first-occurrence explanatory footnote per §3.2); wrestling-with-God narrative; Angel/Messenger-adjacent theophany.
33	Reviewed — Jacob/Esau reconciliation (kev sib haum xeeb, reused in its legitimate narrower horizontal sense per the registry note at #72); no new lexical gap.
34	Reviewed — Dinah narrative; sin/txhaum vocabulary reused (violence and consequence); no new theological-lexical gap beyond existing fencing.
35	Covered — Israel’s renaming reaffirmed (35:10); household idols buried (dab mlom, extends #31/#66); death refrain continues (Rachel, Isaac).
36	Reviewed — Esau’s toledot/genealogy; structural device only, no new lexical gap.
37	Covered — Joseph cycle begins: dream as revelatory vehicle (npau suav, §1 row 8) intensifies into its dominant use; peace/kev thaj yeeb (37:14, sent “in peace”); sin’s consequences (brothers’ jealousy and violence) launches the Joseph-Providence doctrine’s narrative arc.
38	Reviewed — Tamar and Judah; righteous/righteousness vocabulary reused (tzaddiq, Tamar’s relative righteousness, #47); no new lexical gap beyond existing righteousness fencing.
39	Covered — “the LORD was with him” providential-presence formula’s dominant occurrence (§1 row 8/§4 item — core anchor text); sin (Potiphar’s wife) and injustice narrative.
40-41	Covered — dream-vehicle doctrine continues (Pharaoh’s dreams; Joseph’s interpretive gift); providence operating through, not around, continued unjust imprisonment.
42	Reviewed — sin/guilt vocabulary (brothers’ guilt surfacing); no new lexical gap beyond existing txhaum fencing.
43	Reviewed — mercy/compassion (Joseph’s private weeping, reused mercy entry, #46); no new gap.
44	Reviewed — sin/guilt vocabulary continues (Judah’s intercession); no new lexical gap.
45	Covered — Joseph’s self-revelation and unilateral forgiveness (kev zam txim, §1 row 8/§4 item 9); remnant terminology applied to preservation of life (45:7, #71); reconciliation (horizontal sense) reused.
46-47	Reviewed — Jacob’s family resettles in Egypt; ordinary material blessing and grace-favor language recur (Joseph’s favor before Pharaoh, reused grace entry in its narrower favor-sense); no new theological-lexical gap.
48	Reviewed — Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons; performative-blessing vocabulary continues (§1 row 7); heir/inheritance vocabulary reused.
49	Covered — Jacob’s tribal blessings; Shiloh/royal-scepter Messianic prophecy (Sailoj, §3.2/#39); seed/zera trajectory’s final patriarchal-era occurrence (49:8-12); hope (kev cia siab, reused) anticipates Joseph’s dying instructions.
50	Covered — the capstone formula “God meant it for good” (§1 row 5/§4 item 4, the single highest-doctrinal-density verse pairing Providence and Joseph-Providence doctrines); forgiveness completed (50:15-21); covenant-hope formula (“God will surely visit you,” paqad, §1 row 7/#58) closes the book, deliberately unresolved, anticipating Exodus.

Coverage confirmation: All 50 chapters of Genesis have been explicitly reviewed. No chapter was silently skipped; chapters without new lexical gaps are logged as “Reviewed” per the full-book-coverage mandate in 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §1 and its inherited convention from analysis/11_doctrine_analysis.md Part B.