Genesis — Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package)

0. Methodology Note — Original Language Correction

Genesis, unlike Romans, was not composed in Koine Greek. It is a Hebrew (with a handful of Aramaic-adjacent proper nouns) document of the Torah. To preserve factual and doctrinal integrity, this analysis treats Biblical Hebrew as the original language of every lexical entry below. Where a term is quoted or echoed in Romans (e.g., Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4; Genesis 1-3 in Romans 5 and 8; Genesis 25/27 in Romans 9), the Septuagint (LXX) Greek rendering is cited alongside the Hebrew, because the baseline Romans Translation Memory (assets/translation_memory.json) was built against those Greek forms, and this document must not contradict it. All Hmong renderings for terms already fixed in the Romans TM are reused exactly, character-for-character, per the hard governing rule of this project. New Genesis-specific terms are assigned provisional Hmong renderings following the same register, script (RPA), and risk-tier conventions as the baseline registry, and are formally logged in analysis/08_core_glossary.md for future TM-revision review, consistent with §2.4 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.

A note of special importance for this book: Hmong oral tradition contains its own indigenous supreme-being/creator-ancestor figure, commonly called Yawm Saub (or Saub), who in some tellings warns a chosen brother-and-sister pair of a coming world-flood and instructs them to survive inside a hollow log/drum in order to repopulate the earth. Because Genesis 1 (creation) and Genesis 6-9 (flood) are the two narrative blocks most structurally similar to this indigenous myth, the risk of syncretistic fusion is unusually high in this book compared to Romans. “Yawm Saub” / “Saub” is PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN as a rendering for Elohim or YHWH anywhere in this curriculum. The baseline Vajtswv (already fixed in the Romans TM) is the sole permitted rendering, precisely because it carries no competing mythological narrative attached to it. This ruling is treated as inherited-and-extended baseline doctrine and is repeated throughout this document wherever the collision risk resurfaces.

---

PART A — Core Passage Verse-by-Verse: Genesis 1:1–2:3

Verse	Hebrew term(s)	Translit.	Literal meaning	Semantic range	English variants	Contextual theological meaning	Hmong rendering & risk
1:1	בְּרֵאשִׁית	bereshit	”in [the] beginning”	absolute temporal origin point, not merely “once upon a time"	"In the beginning,” “When God began…”	Marks the absolute beginning of time, space, and matter — nothing preceded God’s creative act. Foundation of Creation Ex Nihilo doctrine.	thaum chivkeeb (at the very beginning). Low-Medium: comprehension gap only; no competing cosmology term to collide with, but must be taught as an absolute, not relative, beginning.
1:1	אֱלֹהִים	Elohim	”God” (grammatically plural form, used with singular verbs for the true God)	generic term for deity/gods; here functions as a proper-noun-like title for the one true God	”God”	The plural morphology is a grammatical intensive/majestic plural, not polytheism; some see a distant echo of triune fullness, though this must not be overclaimed from grammar alone.	Vajtswv — reused exactly from Romans TM (Low risk). Hmong “Vajtswv” is inherently singular in force, which actually helps avoid a false plural-gods reading. “Yawm Saub”/“Saub” FORBIDDEN — see §0.
1:1	בָּרָא	bara	”created, brought into being”	a verb reserved almost exclusively for God’s action; denotes bringing about something genuinely new, without prior analogy or material stated	”created,” “made”	Root basis for Creation Ex Nihilo, though the verb bara alone does not lexically prove “from nothing” — the ex nihilo doctrine is the theological conclusion drawn from the absolute beginning of 1:1 combined with the total absence of any pre-existing material named prior to God’s act, later confirmed in Hebrews 11:3, John 1:3.	tsim (create) — reuses the root verb behind the baseline’s “creation” entry (tej uas raug tsim los, Low risk in Romans). Critical for Genesis: must be distinguished from asah (see 1:7 below) so hearers do not collapse “create from nothing” into “shape from existing material.” See G1/G2 in glossary.
1:1	הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ	ha-shamayim ve-ha-arets	”the heavens and the earth”	totality merism for the entire created order	”the heavens and the earth,” “the universe”	Comprehensive scope: God, not any lesser being, is the sole originator of literally everything that exists.	lub ntuj thiab lub ntiajteb (Low). No collision.
1:2	תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ	tohu wa-bohu	”formless and empty / a wasteland and a void”	unformed, uninhabitable, unproductive state — not evil chaos, not a rival power	”formless and void,” “a formless wasteland”	Describes the unfinished, not-yet-ordered initial state of the created material, prior to God’s ordering work over six days. Not a struggle against chaos-deities (a deliberate anti-mythological polemic).	tsis muaj tsim txheej tsis muaj qauv (having no form, no order yet) — descriptive periphrasis. Low-Medium: comprehension gap; note for teaching that this is not a rival chaos-power, unlike some regional creation myths (including elements of Hmong oral cosmology) that feature primeval chaos-beings.
1:2	תְהוֹם	tehom	”the deep”	the primordial waters/abyss	”the deep,” “the ocean depths”	Same anti-mythological polemic point: elsewhere in the Ancient Near East “the deep” is a personified chaos-god (e.g., Tiamat); Genesis flatly de-personifies it as inert material under God’s total control.	dej thu (the deep waters) — Low-Medium, teaching note recommended contrasting with any personified-water-spirit folk belief.
1:2	רוּח אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת	ruach Elohim merachefet	”the Spirit/wind of God hovering/brooding”	ruach ranges from “wind/breath” to “spirit”; merachefet = hovering as a bird over its nest	”the Spirit of God was hovering,” “a wind from God swept over”	Widely read by the Christian tradition as the Holy Spirit’s active presence in creation — an act of the whole Godhead, not a lesser cosmic force.	Vaj Ntsuj Plig ntawm Vajtswv nyob saum dej — reuses the baseline’s fixed, Critical-risk “Vaj Ntsuj Plig” collocation (never dropping the “Vaj” prefix). Critical: this is the very first occurrence in the whole Bible of the divine Spirit; must never be rendered with bare “ntsuj plig” or confused with any wind-spirit/nature-spirit language from folk religion.
1:3	וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר	vayomer Elohim yehi or	”and God said, let there be light”	creative speech-act; God’s spoken word itself effects reality	”And God said, ‘Let there be light‘“	Establishes creation-by-divine-word (cf. John 1:1-3), i.e., not by struggle, combat, or manipulation of pre-existing substance by ritual.	Vajtswv hais tias, “Cia muaj lub teeb ci” (Low). No collision; reinforces (rather than undermines) the ex nihilo point since word alone, with no material or ritual act, produces light.
1:4	וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים… כִּי־טוֹב	vayar Elohim…ki-tov	”and God saw…that [it was] good”	tov = good, pleasing, functioning rightly, morally/aesthetically sound	”God saw that it was good”	First occurrence of the refrain that structures the whole chapter; affirms the intrinsic goodness of the material creation, foreclosing any dualism that treats matter as inherently evil or spiritually inferior.	Vajtswv pom tias zoo kawg — Low. This refrain recurs at 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31 (culminating “very good,” see below); rendered identically at each occurrence for consistency.
1:4	וַיַּבְדֵּל	vayavdel	”and he separated/divided”	ordering, distinguishing verb, recurs at 1:6-7 (waters), 1:14 (day/night, seasons), 1:18	”separated,” “divided”	God’s ordering work — imposing distinguishable categories on the formless mass — is itself part of the creative act, not a lesser follow-up task.	cais (separate) — Low.
1:5	וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם	vayikra…yom / laylah	”and God called the light Day…night”	naming as an act of ordering/authority	”God called,” “day,” “night”	Naming is an exercise of sovereign authority over what is named — the same authority later delegated to Adam in 2:19-20 (dominion, image of God).	hu ua (call/name) — Low. Sets up the naming-as-authority motif reused at 2:19-20.
1:5	עֶרֶב…בֹּקֶר…יוֹם אֶחָד	erev…boqer…yom echad	”evening…morning…day one”	the evening-morning formula recurs for each of the six days	”the first day,” “one day”	Establishes the creation-week pattern culminating in the Sabbath rest of 2:2-3; the precise nature of “day” (24-hour vs. long epoch) is a legitimate area of ongoing evangelical debate but is not itself a translation-collision risk — hnub (day) is lexically stable in Hmong.	hnub ib (day one) — Low; the interpretive debate is a teaching-note matter, not a lexical-risk matter.
1:6-8	רָקִיע	raqia	”firmament, expanse”	the visible sky/dome separating waters above from waters below	”firmament,” “expanse,” “sky”	Ancient cosmology described a solid sky-dome; modern readers picture atmosphere/sky. This is a comprehension gap, not a doctrinal collision, since Hmong likewise has no technical cosmological term requiring correction.	lub ntuj / qhov chaw nruab nrab ntawm dej saum thiab dej hauv (the space/sky between the waters above and below) — Low-Medium, descriptive periphrasis recommended for clarity.
1:9-10	יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם…יַבָּשָׁה…יַמִּים	yikkavu hamayim…yabbashah…yammim	”let the waters be gathered…dry land…seas”	ordering of the waters and emergence of land	”dry land,” “seas”	Continued ordering of the formless mass into habitable space; sets the stage for plant, animal, and human life.	av qhuav (dry land), dej hiav txwv (seas) — Low.
1:11-13	דֶּשֶׁא, עֵשֶׂב מַזְרִיעַ זֶרַע, עֵץ…לְמִינוֹ	deshe, esev mazria zera, etz…le-mino	”vegetation, seed-bearing plants, trees…according to its kind”	zera = seed (recurs as a major theological term, see 3:15, 12:7, 22:17-18); min = kind/category, the taxonomic refrain of ch. 1	”seed-bearing plants,” “each according to its kind”	Establishes ordered biological reproduction (“according to its kind”) as part of the created order, and introduces zera (seed), a word that will carry enormous theological freight later (the promised “seed” of 3:15 and of Abraham).	noob (seed) — Low here (botanical sense); flagged High later at 3:15 and 12:7/22:18 when the same word carries Messianic/covenantal weight (see G22). Consistency of the underlying word across botanical and Messianic senses should be preserved so the wordplay is not lost.
1:14-19	מְאֹרֹת…לְמוֹעֲדִים…הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל / הַקָּטֹן	me’orot…le-mo’adim…ha-ma’or ha-gadol/ha-qatan	”lights…for appointed times…the great light/the lesser light”	mo’adim = fixed/appointed times, festival seasons	”lights,” “seasons,” “the greater light,” “the lesser light”	Notably, the text deliberately avoids the ordinary Hebrew words for “sun” (shemesh) and “moon” (yareach) — both of which were the names of widely-worshiped Ancient Near Eastern astral deities — calling them instead merely “the greater light” and “the lesser light.” This is a deliberate anti-idolatry polemic: the sun and moon are demoted from deities to created objects with a function.	lub teeb loj (the great light), lub teeb me (the lesser light) rather than the ordinary Hmong words for “sun” (hnub) / “moon” (hli) at this specific point in translation, to preserve Paul-like Genesis’s own polemical strategy. Medium-High: teaching note required, since Hmong tradition (like many folk traditions) can accord ritual or spiritual significance to sun/moon/sky bodies; this verse is doing deliberate theological work by demoting them, and the translation should not silently normalize back to “the sun and the moon” without that framing.
1:20-23	שֶׁרֶץ, נֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה, עוֹף, תַּנִּינִם	sheretz, nephesh chayyah, oph, taninim	”swarming creatures, living creature/soul, birds, great sea creatures”	nephesh chayyah = “living soul/being,” first occurrence of nephesh (see G11); taninim often denotes large sea creatures/“sea monsters"	"living creatures,” “sea monsters,” “great creatures”	Ancient Near Eastern mythology frequently personified great sea-creatures as rival chaos-deities; Genesis flatly categorizes them as ordinary creatures God made and blessed, continuing the anti-mythological polemic.	tus nyob muaj sia (a living being) for nephesh chayyah — High risk: must NOT be rendered with ntsuj plig, which the Romans TM reserves exclusively for the human/anthropological spirit-soul, nor with Vaj Ntsuj Plig, reserved for the Holy Spirit. A living creature’s nephesh is its animating life, not a “soul” in either of those two fixed senses. See G11.
1:24-25	בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה, רֶמֶשׂ, לְמִינָהּ	behemah, chayyah, remes, le-minah	”livestock, wild animals, creeping things, according to its kind”	continues the taxonomic “kind” refrain	”livestock,” “wild animals,” “creeping things”	Completes the ordering of animal life before the climactic creation of humanity.	tsiaj txhu, tsiaj qus, tsiaj nkag — Low, standard vocabulary.
1:26	נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם	na’aseh adam	”let us make man/humankind”	plural cohortative verb form; adam here is generic “humankind,” not yet the proper name	”Let us make man,” “Let us make humankind”	The plural “let us” (also 11:7) has long invited discussion of an intra-divine council or a hint of Trinitarian plurality; the safest teaching posture, consistent with the rest of Scripture’s progressive revelation, is to note the plurality without overclaiming explicit Trinitarian doctrine from this verse alone.	cia peb tsim tus neeg — Low-Medium; note for teaching, not a translation risk per se.
1:26	בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ	be-tsalmenu ki-demutenu	”in our image, according to our likeness”	tselem = image/statue/representative figure; demuth = likeness/resemblance; the two terms together form a fixed theological pair	”in our image, after our likeness”	Foundational text for the Image of God doctrine: humanity uniquely represents God’s rule and character on earth, with inherent, universal, non-graded dignity.	raug tsim raws li Vajtswv tus duab, thiab zoo li Vajtswv — Critical. Hmong duab (“image, shadow, likeness, portrait”) is also the word used in Hmong folk belief for a person’s shadow-soul (a separate soul-component from the ntsuj plig, believed in some traditional accounts to be vulnerable to loss/theft by spirits). This creates real risk that “made in God’s image/duab” could be heard as “God’s shadow-soul is inside every person” (an animistic emanation concept) rather than “every person is God’s appointed representative, bearing His likeness in dignity, rationality, and moral capacity.” Mandatory teaching note required at every occurrence; see G8.
1:26	וְיִרְדּוּ…וְכִבְשֻׁהָ	ve-yirdu…ve-khivshuha	”and let them rule…and subdue it”	radah = rule/have dominion; kabash = subdue/bring under control	”have dominion,” “subdue,” “rule over”	Establishes the dominion mandate: humanity is God’s steward-ruler over creation, not creation’s exploiter, and not itself divine.	kav thiab tswj (rule and govern) — High: must be carefully distinguished from the shamanic-power-associated hwjchim vocabulary flagged Critical/High in the Romans baseline (dominion is delegated stewardship under God, not personal mystical power over spirits); must also avoid a framing of unrestrained exploitation of creation. See G10.
1:27	זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם	zakhar u-nekevah bera’am	”male and female he created them”	both sexes together, without distinction of rank, bear the divine image	”male and female he created them”	Grounds the equal dignity of men and women in creation itself, prior to and independent of the Fall; foundational for the Image of God doctrine’s scope.	poj sab txiv sab, nws tsim ob tug — Low, though the equal-dignity implication should be reinforced in teaching notes, since it can be under-taught in patrilineal-clan cultural contexts.
1:28	פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ	peru u-rvu	”be fruitful and multiply”	blessing-command for procreation	”be fruitful and multiply”	The first blessing pronounced over humanity (barak, see G14) — establishes fruitfulness/increase as a good creation gift, not yet tied to the later covenant-blessing sense that recurs with Abraham.	koj yuav muaj ntau tub ki thiab huamvam coob — Low.
1:29-30	לְאָכְלָה	le-okhlah	”for food”	provision of plants as food for humans and animals	”for food,” “to eat”	God’s generous provision precedes any request or merit — an early note of what will later be formalized doctrinally as common grace: material provision is given freely to all creatures.	rau noj — Low.
1:31	טוֹב מְאֹד	tov me’od	”very good”	intensified form of the tov refrain, now covering the completed whole	”God saw…it was very good”	The climactic verdict on the entirety of the finished creation, including humanity — the highest possible affirmation of the goodness of the material world as originally made.	zoo kawg nkaus — Low; must be kept terminologically parallel to the “good” refrain of 1:4 etc. so hearers track the intensification.
2:1	וַיְכֻלּוּ	vaykhullu	”and they were finished/completed”	completion verb	”were finished,” “were completed”	Marks the intentional, purposeful completion of the six-day creative work — not an open-ended or ongoing struggle.	tiav lawm — Low.
2:2	וַיִּשְׁבֹּת	vayishbot	”and he rested/ceased”	root of Shabbat; “rested” here means ceased from creative activity, not that God was tired	”rested,” “ceased from his work”	Establishes the pattern behind the Sabbath ordinance — a creation ordinance of rhythm and rest, prior to and independent of the Mosaic Law given later (cf. Exodus 20:11).	so (rest/cease) — High: see G13. Must be taught as a creation ordinance of rhythm (work-then-rest built into the created order itself), not as a repeatable ritual-purification rest comparable to folk-observance rest days, and must be kept distinct from any implication that God rested because He was depleted.
2:3	וַיְבָרֶךְ…וַיְקַדֵּשׁ	vayevarekh…vayekaddesh	”and he blessed…and he sanctified/made holy”	barak = bless (see G14); qadash = set apart as holy, same root family as “holy” (qodesh) applied elsewhere to persons and to the Holy Spirit	”blessed the seventh day and made it holy”	God Himself blesses and sanctifies a day — the first occurrence of “holy” in Scripture, applied not to a person’s moral character but to a set-apart unit of time. Must be kept lexically distinguishable from the moral-transformation sense of sanctification applied to believers later (cf. Romans 6, baseline “kev raug ua kom dawb huv”).	foom koob thiab tsa ua hnub dawb huv — High: reuses the dawb huv root already flagged High-risk in the Romans baseline (folk ritual-purity collision) but here applied to a day, not a person’s moral character; teaching note must distinguish “this day is set apart” from “this person has been morally transformed,” so the two senses of dawb huv across Genesis and Romans are not confused with each other.

---

PART B — Chapter-by-Chapter Study, Genesis 1–50

(Chapter 1:1–2:3 is fully covered in Part A above and is not repeated. Where a chapter contributes no new load-bearing theological vocabulary, this is stated explicitly per the full-book-coverage mandate.)

Chapter 2 (2:4-25)

New load-bearing terms:

• aphar (עָפָר, “dust”) — man formed from the dust of the ground. Hmong: hmoov av (dust/soil). Low; reinforces humanity’s creaturely, non-divine origin (contrast with any folk notion of humans emerging from a divine substance).
• nishmat chayyim (נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים, “breath of life,” 2:7) — Critical. God breathes life into the formed man. Hmong: cua pa ua rau muaj txoj sia (the breath that gives life). Must NOT be rendered with ntsuj plig or Vaj Ntsuj Plig — this is God’s animating breath-act, not a statement that the Holy Spirit indwells Adam in the New Testament sense, nor a reference to the folk multi-soul concept. See G12.
• Gan-Eden (גַּן־עֵדֶן, “Garden of Eden”) — proper noun. Hmong: lub Vaj Edee (transliterated). Low.
• etz ha-chayyim / etz ha-da’at tov wa-ra (“tree of life” / “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”) — Medium. Hmong: tsob ntoo txoj sia / tsob ntoo kev paub zoo paub phem, deliberately reusing the phrase-root already established in the baseline’s “conscience” entry (tej kev paub zoo paub phem hauv lub siab) to build vocabulary continuity between Genesis and Romans.
• ezer (kenegdo) (עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, “a helper corresponding to him,” 2:18,20) — Medium. Hmong: tus pab uas zoo sib xws nrog nws (a helper who corresponds/matches him). Must be taught as complementary partnership, not subordination of worth — extends the Image of God doctrine explicitly to woman (already established at 1:27).
• basar echad (בָּשָׂר אֶחָד, “one flesh,” 2:24) — reuses the baseline’s neutral flesh entry, lub cev nqaij tawv (Critical baseline term, kept in its neutral physical sense here, not the moral/sinful-nature sense). Marriage union described physically/relationally, not sacrificially.

Chapter 3 — The Fall

• nachash (נָחָשׁ, “serpent,” 3:1) — High. Hmong: nab. Genesis does not identify the serpent as Satan outright (that identification is later, cf. Revelation 12:9); translation should render the plain narrative sense (a serpent) while the teaching note supplies the fuller biblical-theological identification. Additional caution: snakes carry varied, sometimes ambivalent spiritual associations in regional folk religion; teaching note should clarify this is a real created animal used as a vehicle for a genuine spiritual tempter, not itself an object of power or fear to be ritually managed.
• arum (עָרוּם, “crafty/cunning”) wordplay with arummim (“naked,” 2:25) — Low-Medium, literary note only.
• chattat / sin — reuses baseline txhaum / kev txhaum (High risk, inherited).
• arar / qalal (אָרַר / קָלַל, “curse,” 3:14,17) — Critical, NEW. Hmong: foom tsis zoo / khaub ncaws (pronounce a curse/place under judgment). This directly collides with the Hmong shamanic practice of foom (ritual cursing and its ritual removal, rho/tso foom). God’s judicial curse in Genesis 3 is not a magical formula manageable by counter-ritual; it is a righteous verdict flowing from His holiness, remedied only by the promised Seed (3:15), never by appeasement rites. Mandatory contrast-teaching required at every occurrence, parallel to the baseline’s handling of “wrath of God.” See G21.
• zera (זֶרַע, “seed/offspring,” 3:15) — High, NEW. Hmong: noob (reusing the botanical word from 1:11 deliberately, to preserve the wordplay). This is the Protoevangelium — the first promise of a coming Deliverer (“he shall bruise your head”). Must never be flattened into generic lineage/genealogy language; ties directly to the Abrahamic Covenant doctrine (12:7, 22:17-18) and ultimately to Christ. See G22.
• bosh / ervah (shame/nakedness) — reuses baseline txaj muag (ashamed, Low, inherited).
• garments of skin (3:21) — God’s provision of clothing despite the Fall: an early instance of common grace (see G48), Hmong: tsoos tsho tawv tsiaj — Low, but flagged for the Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace doctrine as the first concrete example of God’s continued kindness to fallen humanity.

Chapter 4 — Cain and Abel

• qorban / minchah (קׇרְבָּן / מִנְחָה, “offering”) — Critical, NEW. Hmong: khoom fij (reusing the fij root already flagged High/Critical in the Romans baseline for its collision with shamanic spirit-appeasement offerings). Must be taught carefully: the text does not say Cain’s offering was rejected for wrong ritual form but for the heart/faith behind it (cf. Hebrews 11:4) — this must not be taught in a way that suggests ritual-correctness itself earns divine favor (a direct echo of the grace-vs-merit collision already Critical in the Romans baseline).
• Sin personified “crouching at the door” (4:7) — direct narrative parallel to the baseline’s indwelling_sin entry (kev txhaum nyob hauv, Medium risk, inherited); useful cross-reference for teaching continuity between Genesis and Romans 7.
• Cain’s line building cities, tools, music (4:17-22) — first narrative instance of common grace culture-building despite the murderer’s lineage; see G48, ties to Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace doctrine.
• Mark/curse on Cain (4:11-15) — reuses arar (G21, Critical) established above.

Chapter 5 — Genealogy from Adam to Noah

• toledot (תּוֹלְדֹת, “generations, genealogical account”) — NEW, Medium. Hmong: keeb kwm / cov xeeb ntxwv (genealogical record/descendants). Recurs as a structuring device throughout Genesis (5:1; 10:1; 11:10; 25:12; 36:1; 37:2, etc.); ties to the Covenant Faithfulness across Generations doctrine — God’s purposes advance through named, real family lines, not abstract fate.
• “walked with God” (hithalekh et ha-Elohim, Enoch, 5:22,24) — Medium, NEW. Hmong: taug kev nrog Vajtswv (walked/journeyed with God). Idiom for intimate covenant fellowship; note the possible ambiguity with Hmong idioms of “walking with” or communing with ancestor spirits — must be anchored explicitly to Vajtswv, not left as a bare idiom. See G33.
• Universal death refrain (“and he died,” repeated through the chapter) — reuses baseline txoj kev tuag (death, Low, inherited); reinforces Romans 5:12’s “death spread to all” argument with its narrative source text.

Chapters 6–9 — Noah, the Flood, and the Noahic Covenant

• chen / chanan (חֵן / חָנַן, “favor/grace,” 6:8, “Noah found favor/grace in the eyes of the LORD”) — Critical, reuses baseline txiaj ntsim. This is one of the most important OT anchor-texts for the Grace doctrine; must never be rendered koob hmoov, per the baseline’s permanent prohibition — Noah did not earn rescue through ritual correctness or fortune, but was shown unmerited favor.
• tzaddiq (צַדִּיק, “righteous,” 6:9, “Noah was righteous in his generation”) — reuses baseline Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees / tus ncaj ncees family (Critical, inherited). Teaching note: Noah’s righteousness is relative (“in his generation,” by comparison with a violent age) and is itself a fruit of the favor already shown him (6:8), not its cause — must not be taught as self-achieved merit that produced God’s favor, protecting the forensic/gracious ordering already established in the Romans baseline.
• chamas (חָמָס, “violence”) — NEW, Low-Medium. Hmong: kev nyiam ua nruj ua tsiv (violence/oppression). Describes the pre-flood corruption that provoked judgment; ties Sin’s Consequences doctrine.
• brit (בְּרִית, “covenant,” first occurrence 6:18) — Critical, NEW. Hmong: Vajtswv txoj kev cog lus (God’s covenant/solemn pact). This term must be kept lexically distinct from the baseline’s “promise” entry (lus cog tseg, Low, inherited): a promise is a one-sided assurance, while a covenant (brit) is a formal, ratified, sign-bearing relational commitment. The Hmong phrase deliberately extends the “cog lus” root shared with “promise” while adding a formal-relationship marker, preserving continuity with the Romans TM while distinguishing the deeper covenantal category. See G27; this is the single most important new lexical item in Genesis for the Abrahamic Covenant and Covenant Faithfulness across Generations doctrines, and it recurs at 9:9-17, 15:18, 17:2-21.
• oth (אוֹת, “sign,” 9:12-17, the rainbow) — Medium, NEW. Hmong descriptive rendering recommended: lub cim ntawm txoj kev cog lus (the sign of the covenant) with the specific visual referent flagged [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm precise standard Hmong lexical item for “rainbow”] rather than guessing an uncertain word.
• Wrath of God / judicial flood judgment — reuses baseline kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (High, inherited). Critical teaching flag specific to Genesis: because Hmong oral tradition already contains its own flood-and-survivor myth (see §0), this is the single highest-risk passage in the entire book for syncretistic confusion. The flood must be taught as God’s righteous, non-capricious judgment on sin, with Noah’s rescue as unmerited grace tied to the coming covenant — never assimilated to, or illustrated by reference to, the indigenous Yawm Saub flood narrative.
• Post-flood reaffirmation of the Image of God (9:6) — reuses G8 (Critical, above).
• Noah’s drunkenness and the curse on Ham’s line (9:20-27) — reuses arar (G21); illustrates Sin’s Consequences continuing even after the flood-judgment and covenant-grace, i.e., grace does not eliminate ongoing human sinfulness.

Chapter 10 — Table of Nations

No new theological vocabulary. Reuses toledot (ch.5) genealogical formula and anticipates the baseline’s nations/gentiles entry (lwm Haiv Neeg) and Jew entry (cov Yudas, via Shem’s line) — explicitly logged as reviewed per the full-book-coverage mandate.

Chapter 11 — The Tower of Babel

• Bavel / balal (בָּבֶל / בָּלַל, “Babel/to confuse,” 11:9) — Low-Medium, NEW. Hmong: kev sib cais lus (confusion of languages), deliberately reusing the phrase-structure of the baseline’s “divisions/factions” entry (kev sib cais ua pab ua pawg) for register consistency. Illustrates the Sin’s Consequences and Common Grace doctrine: God’s scattering judgment is also a restraining act of common grace that limits humanity’s capacity for unified, God-defying rebellion.

Chapters 12–17 — The Abram/Abraham Cycle

• Call and promise (12:1-3): barak (בָּרַךְ, “bless”) — reuses G14; “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” is the Abrahamic Covenant’s universal scope, echoed in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. Must be distinguished from ordinary material blessing language elsewhere by explicit anchoring to the covenant promise, not mere prosperity.
• zera (seed, 12:7; 13:15-16; 15:5; 17:7-8; 22:17-18) — reuses G22 (High); the promised land and promised offspring are both tied to the singular/collective “seed,” which Paul (Galatians 3:16) reads as ultimately fulfilled in Christ. Teaching note required at every recurrence.
• he’emin ba-Adonai (“believed the LORD,” 15:6) and tzedaqah (צְדָקָה, “righteousness,” “counted it to him as righteousness”) — Critical, direct textual source for Romans 4:3, 9, 22. MUST use the exact baseline renderings: ntseeg (faith/believe, inherited) and suav tias ncaj ncees / suav (reckon/impute, Critical, inherited from the “reckon_impute” and “justify_reckon_as_righteous” TM entries). This is the single most important cross-book textual link in the entire curriculum; any deviation here would create a direct contradiction with the Romans baseline.
• Covenant ceremony (15:9-18, “cutting a covenant,” karat brit) — Critical. The Hebrew idiom for covenant-making is literally “to cut a covenant,” originating in the sacrificial ritual of ch.15. Hmong culture has its own blood-oath/animal-sacrifice covenant-making customs used in ancestral-spirit pacts; this is a genuine partial bridge (formal ritual, blood, binding commitment) but also a genuine collision risk (God’s covenant with Abraham is not a mutual bargain between equal spirit-parties but a sovereign, gracious self-obligation by God alone, dramatized in the passage by Abram falling into a deep sleep while God alone passes between the pieces). [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm safest phrasing to preserve ritual imagery without implying a mutual spirit-pact].
• milah / brit milah (circumcision, ch.17) — reuses baseline kev txiav root, but the baseline’s qualifier “(raws li Txoj Kevcai Mauxes)” is chronologically anachronistic here, since circumcision in Genesis 17 predates Moses by centuries and functions as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic Law. [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: qualifier-phrase revision] — recommend kev txiav (raws li kev cog lus ntawm Vajtswv thiab Anplahas) for Genesis contexts specifically, reserving the Mosaic qualifier for Romans/NT contexts, and flag this distinction formally for TM-revision review per §2.4 of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md.
• Name changes Abram→Abraham, Sarai→Sarah (17:5,15) — proper-noun etymology (“father of many nations”); Low, transliterate.
• Hagar/Ishmael, “El Roi” — “the God who sees” (16:13) — Low-Medium; early minor witness to the Providence doctrine (God sees and provides even for those outside the covenant line, an early common-grace note).

Chapters 18–19 — Sodom and Gomorrah

• Theophany/angelic visitors, Abraham’s intercession (18:16-33) — models prayerful appeal to God’s justice and mercy; reuses baseline txoj kev khuv leej (mercy, inherited) conceptually, though not lexically present in the Hebrew here.
• Judgment on Sodom — reuses kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath, High, inherited).
• Precursor to the “remnant” concept (Lot’s household spared) — anticipates baseline cov seem (remnant, Low, inherited from the Future-of-Israel doctrine in Romans); useful forward cross-reference.

Chapter 20 — Abraham and Abimelech

• yir’at Elohim (יִרְאַת אֱלֹהִים, “fear of God,” 20:11) — Medium, NEW. Hmong: kev hwm thiab ntshai Vajtswv (reverent fear/awe of God). Recurs at 22:12; must be taught as reverent awe, not terror, and distinguished from fear of capricious ancestor-spirits requiring appeasement. See G36.

Chapters 21–22 — Isaac’s Birth and the Binding of Isaac

• Yitzchaq (“he laughs,” etymology of Isaac’s name, 21:6) — Low, proper noun, marks promise-fulfillment.
• olah (עֹלָה, “burnt offering,” 22:2-13) — Critical, NEW. Hmong: khoom fij hlawv (a wholly burnt offering), distinguished from the general qorban/minchah term (G24) by specifying the totality of the offering. The substitutionary ram (22:13) and the naming “The LORD Will Provide” (Yahweh-Yireh, 22:14) form a direct typological anticipation of the baseline’s propitiation_atoning_sacrifice entry (qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum, Critical, inherited). Mandatory teaching note: this passage must be taught as prefiguring, not duplicating, Christ’s once-for-all atonement — the ram substitutes for Isaac in this single narrative instance, whereas Christ’s substitution is final and universal in scope.
• nasah (נָסָה, “test/try,” 22:1) — Medium, NEW. Hmong: sim (test/try). God’s testing of Abraham’s faith must be distinguished from any suggestion of divine cruelty or ritual demand comparable to actual child-sacrifice practices condemned elsewhere in Scripture (e.g., Leviticus 18:21) — the passage’s entire point is that God provides a substitute and never intended Isaac’s death.
• yir’at Elohim (fear of God, 22:12) — reuses G36 above.

Chapter 23 — Sarah’s Death and the Purchase of Machpelah

No major new theological vocabulary; reuses zera/land-promise language already established (ch.12-17). Concretizes the land-promise dimension of the Abrahamic Covenant through an actual legal land transaction. Logged as reviewed.

Chapter 24 — Isaac’s Bride

No major new theological vocabulary; the servant’s prayer for guidance is a minor, implicit witness to the Providence doctrine but introduces no new lexical risk. Logged as reviewed.

Chapter 25 — Esau, Jacob, and the Birthright

• bekhorah (בְּכֹרָה, “birthright/firstborn portion,” 25:31-34) — Medium-High, NEW. Hmong: feem thawj tug (the firstborn’s portion/inheritance right). Strong cultural bridge to Hmong firstborn-inheritance custom (reuses conceptual ground already laid by the baseline’s heir entry, tus qub txeeg qub teg, Low, inherited), but the narrative’s point — Esau’s contempt for a a spiritual/covenantal inheritance in favor of immediate appetite — must be taught carefully so it is not reduced to a mere property dispute.
• “Jacob I loved, Esau I hated” language (foreshadowed here, quoted directly in Romans 9:13) — Critical cross-reference: this narrative is the direct Old Testament source text for the baseline’s election_choose entry (Critical, inherited, permanently forbidding hmoov/fate vocabulary). The unconditional nature of God’s choice between the twins, prior to either’s deeds, must be preserved exactly as taught in the Romans baseline.

Chapter 26 — Isaac’s Covenant Renewal

No new theological vocabulary; reuses brit (G27) and repeats the deception pattern seen with Abraham, illustrating Sin’s Consequences across generations without new lexical items. Logged as reviewed.

Chapters 27–28 — Jacob’s Blessing and Bethel

• berakhah (בְּרָכָה, “blessing,” distinct from the birthright, ch. 27) — reuses G14/barak family. Medium-High: the spoken, performative, binding nature of Isaac’s blessing pronouncement offers a genuine cultural bridge to the Hmong custom of spoken blessing-invocation (foom koob hmoov) — both cultures treat a solemn spoken blessing as having real, binding effect. The difference that must be taught: biblical blessing operates within God’s sovereign covenant purposes (which is why the blessing, once given, cannot simply be undone by human regret, 27:33-38), not as a manipulable ritual formula independent of God’s will.
• Beth-El (בֵּית־אֵל, “house of God,” Jacob’s ladder vision, ch. 28) — Low, proper noun; theophany renewing the Abrahamic covenant promise to the next generation, direct textual anchor for the Covenant Faithfulness across Generations doctrine.

Chapters 29–31 — Jacob, Laban, and Household Idols

No major new theological vocabulary beyond one important reuse: teraphim (household idols, 31:19,34) reuses the baseline’s idol entry (dab mlom, High, inherited). Important teaching point: even within the covenant family, syncretism with household idols persisted (Rachel’s theft of her father’s teraphim) — a sober illustration of the Sin’s Consequences doctrine operating even among the covenant-elect, not only among outsiders.

Chapters 32–33 — Wrestling with God, the Name Israel, Reconciliation with Esau

• Yisrael (יִשְׂרָאֵל, “he strives with God / God strives,” 32:28) — reuses baseline cov Yixalayees (national referent, Low, inherited) but here is the individual patriarch’s renaming; requires an explanatory gloss distinguishing the personal-name etymology from the later national designation. See G40.
• panim el panim (פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים, “face to face,” Peniel, 32:30) — Low-Medium, idiom; Low collision risk.
• Reconciliation with Esau (ch. 33) — reuses baseline kev sib haum xeeb (reconciliation, Medium, inherited). Important nuance: the baseline’s Romans-context note mandates this term always be anchored God-ward (never merely horizontal) to avoid a flattened reading; here, in Genesis, the reconciliation genuinely is horizontal/interpersonal (two estranged brothers), which is textually appropriate. Teaching note should clarify this is a legitimate, narrower use of the underlying word than the God-ward theological sense fixed in the Romans baseline, not a contradiction of it.

Chapter 34 — Dinah and the Shechemites

No new theological vocabulary; illustrates Sin’s Consequences across generations (violence, revenge) using already-established sin/violence vocabulary (txhaum, chamas-type violence language from ch.6). Logged as reviewed.

Chapter 35 — Bethel Renewed

Reuses Beth-El (ch.28) and confirms the Yisrael name-change (ch.32); household idols are buried (35:2-4), reusing dab mlom (idol, ch.31) and reinforcing the same syncretism-within-the-covenant-family teaching point. No new lexical items. Logged as reviewed with cross-references.

Chapter 36 — Esau’s Genealogy

No new theological vocabulary; genealogical, reuses the toledot formula (ch.5, ch.10). Logged as reviewed.

Chapter 37 — Joseph Sold into Slavery

• chalom (חָלוֹם, “dream,” 37:5-11) — NEW, Low. Hmong: npau suav. Recurs throughout the Joseph narrative as God’s chosen means of revealing His providential plan; begins the Providence and Sovereignty doctrine’s central narrative arc and the Joseph-specific doctrine.
• Jealousy, hatred, and the pit (37:18-28) reuse already-established sin vocabulary (txhaum); no new lexical items beyond chalom.

Chapter 38 — Judah and Tamar

• Levirate marriage custom (38:8-11) — a comprehension gap only (no equivalent Hmong custom by that name), Low risk, requires an explanatory note rather than a lexical fix.
• “She is more righteous than I” (38:26) — reuses baseline tzaddiq/righteousness vocabulary (Critical, inherited) in a minor narrative instance. No further new vocabulary. Logged as reviewed.

Chapters 39–41 — Joseph in Egypt

• “The LORD was with Joseph” (39:2,21,23) — NEW, Critical for the Joseph/Providence doctrine. Hmong: tus Tswv nrog nraim Joseej (the LORD was continually with Joseph). This recurring narrative formula is the interpretive key for the entire Joseph cycle: God’s providential presence operates even in — and precisely through — unjust suffering (slavery, false accusation, imprisonment). See G43.
• chalom (dream) recurs (Pharaoh’s dreams, ch.40-41), reusing the term from ch.37.
• Joseph’s rise to authority — reuses dominion/authority vocabulary conceptually (kav, ch.1) but introduces no new lexical item.

Chapters 42–45 — Reunion and Forgiveness

• selichah / nasa avon (“forgiveness,” literally “to carry/lift away guilt,” 45:1-15; also anticipated at 50:15-21) — Medium-High, NEW, no direct equivalent entry in the Romans baseline TM. Hmong: kev zam txim (forgiveness). Important collision-risk note: Hmong customary reconciliation typically requires visible restitution, ritual apology, or compensatory payment to restore social/relational balance after wrongdoing; Joseph’s forgiveness in this passage is unilateral, gracious, and explicitly God-glorifying (“so that… to preserve for you a remnant,” 45:7) rather than restitution-triggered. This must be taught as flowing from, and illustrating, the same unmerited-grace logic already Critical in the baseline’s Grace and Salvation doctrine, not as ordinary clan reconciliation etiquette.
• “God sent me…to preserve life” (45:5-8) — Critical, NEW, direct textual anchor for the Providence and Sovereignty doctrine and the Joseph-specific doctrine. Hmong: Vajtswv txib kuv ua ntej nej los tsom kwm txoj sia (God sent me ahead of you to preserve life). This formula must always be taught alongside — never separated from — the reality of the brothers’ genuine moral guilt (Joseph does not excuse their sin; he reinterprets its ultimate outcome under God’s sovereign hand). This dual affirmation (human moral responsibility + divine sovereign purpose) directly parallels the same both/and structure already mandated for the Election doctrine in the Romans baseline (never resolve the tension by eliminating either side).

Chapters 46–47 — Jacob’s Family in Egypt

No major new theological vocabulary; the move to Goshen and Joseph’s provision for his family during famine (kev tshaib nqhis, Low, descriptive) reinforce the Covenant Faithfulness across Generations doctrine (God sustaining the covenant family) without introducing new lexical risk. Logged as reviewed.

Chapters 48–49 — Jacob’s Blessings and Tribal Prophecies

• Crossed-hand blessing of Joseph’s sons (ch. 48) reuses berakhah (G/ch.27-28 above); no new lexical item.
• Judah’s tribal blessing (49:8-12), including “the scepter shall not depart from Judah… until Shiloh comes” — Medium-High, NEW proper-noun/messianic-title item. Hmong: transliterate Sailoj with a mandatory footnote identifying this as a Messianic prophecy pointing toward the promised royal line fulfilled in Christ, reusing the zera (seed) trajectory already established (G22) rather than treating it as an isolated new doctrine. Recommend teaching restraint: connect to New Testament fulfillment without over-specifying interpretive details beyond the curriculum’s scope.

Chapter 50 — Joseph’s Death and the Climactic Providence Formula

• “You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good” (50:20) — Critical, capstone text for the Providence and Sovereignty doctrine and the Joseph-specific doctrine. Hmong: nej npaj siab yuav ua phem rau kuv, tiamsis Vajtswv siab zoo, thiaj ua kom tshwm los ua qhov zoo (you planned evil against me, but God’s good purpose brought about good). This verse must never be softened into “everything happens for a reason” fatalism (which would collapse toward the hmoov-fate collision already permanently forbidden for the Election doctrine in the Romans baseline) nor into moral relativism about the brothers’ genuine sin (their evil intent remains real and named as evil, “ra’ah”/phem, even as God’s sovereign purpose is affirmed as ultimate and good). Both truths must be held together explicitly, exactly as required for the Election doctrine.
• paqad (פָּקַד, “to visit/attend to,” 50:24-25, “God will surely visit you”) — NEW, Medium. Hmong: Vajtswv yuav tuaj saib nej thiab coj nej mus (God will surely come and bring you up). Anchors the book’s closing hope to the still-unfulfilled land-promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, ties Covenant Faithfulness across Generations forward toward Exodus.
• Joseph’s bones (50:25-26; cf. Hebrews 11:22, Exodus 13:19) — Low, narrative detail reinforcing confident hope in God’s covenant faithfulness beyond a single lifetime.

---

Summary Cross-Reference to Romans Baseline TM

The following baseline (Romans) TM terms are reused exactly at multiple points across Genesis and must never receive an alternate Genesis-specific rendering: Vajtswv (God), tus Tswv (LORD/Lord), Vaj Ntsuj Plig (Holy Spirit), ntsuj plig (human spirit — reserved sense), txiaj ntsim (grace), koob hmoov (ordinary blessing only, never salvific grace), kev ntseeg / ntseeg (faith/believe), lus cog tseg (promise), suav / suav tias + raug suav tias ncaj ncees (reckon/impute righteousness), txhaum / kev txhaum (sin), kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv (wrath of God), dab mlom (idol), txoj kev tuag (death), kev raug ua kom dawb huv (sanctification — day-sense distinguished per Gen 2:3 note above), tus qub txeeg qub teg (heir), lub yeeb koob (glory), cov seem (remnant), kev sib haum xeeb (reconciliation — horizontal-use note above), lwm Haiv Neeg / cov Yudas (nations/Jews), kev cai raus dej is NOT reused in Genesis (no baptism narrative), kev xaiv (election — reuses the Jacob/Esau anchor text), lub cev nqaij tawv (flesh, neutral sense), kev thaj yeeb (peace), txaj muag (ashamed), kev khuv leej (mercy), kev cia siab (hope).

New Genesis-specific terms established in this document (bara, asah, tselem/demuth, radah/kabash, nephesh chayyah, nishmat chayyim, shabbat, arar/curse, zera/seed as Messianic term, brit/covenant, oth/sign, bekhorah/birthright, chalom/dream, selichah/forgiveness, the providence formula, paqad/visit, and others) are formally logged with full definitions and risk ratings in analysis/08_core_glossary.md for TM-revision review, per the governing note of 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §10.