Jeremiah — Semantic Analysis (Hmong Language Package, Baseline v1.0)

§0. Methodological Note: Source Language

The Romans baseline package was built from Koine Greek (New Testament). Jeremiah is a Hebrew Old Testament book. All original-language fields below therefore cite Biblical Hebrew (Masoretic Text) as the primary original, with the Septuagint (LXX) Koine Greek transliteration cited secondarily in brackets only where it materially affects rendering choice (e.g., where the LXX’s Greek gloss is the bridge already used in existing Hmong Bible tradition, since the Hmong Vaj Lug Kub Npaiv Npaum tradition translates the OT primarily from Hebrew but occasionally reflects LXX-influenced renderings). This is a methodological extension, not a contradiction, of the baseline: register, script (RPA), citation format, and risk-tier definitions established in analysis/12_ai_translation_requirements.md and the doctrine_risk_registry.json apply unchanged.

Every term already fixed in assets/translation_memory.json (the Romans TM) is reused verbatim below wherever the same underlying referent recurs in Jeremiah (e.g., Vajtswv, tus Tswv, txhaum/kev txhaum, dab mlom, kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv, cov seem, txiaj ntsim, kev cawm dim, Vaj Ntsuj Plig, Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees, kev xaiv, kev txhiv, lub siab tawv, kev thaj yeeb, lus cog tseg, lwm Haiv Neeg, cov Yudas, tus timkhawv, Vaj Lug Kub). New terms surfaced by Jeremiah’s distinct vocabulary (covenant-cutting, prophetic office, harlotry-as-idolatry, heart-transformation, etc.) are flagged NEW ENTRY and are candidates for formal TM-revision review per 12_ai_translation_requirements.md §2.4.

---

§1. CORE PASSAGE — Jeremiah 31:31-34 (Verse-by-Verse)

Jeremiah 31:31

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
days are coming הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים hinneh yamim ba’im ”behold, days coming”	Fixed eschatological-oracle formula introducing a future divine act (used 15x in Jeremiah) “the days are coming,” “behold, the time is coming”	Marks 31:31-34 as an unconditional future promise, not a conditional offer	”Saib nawj, hnub yuav los” — Low risk, stable narrative-formula phrase; must remain future-oriented, not read as already-fulfilled-and-closed.
declares the LORD נְאֻם־יְהוָה ne’um YHWH ”utterance/oracle of YHWH”	Formal prophetic-oracle authentication formula, ~175x in Jeremiah alone ”declares the LORD,” “says the LORD,” “thus says the LORD”	Certifies the statement as YHWH’s own direct speech, not Jeremiah’s opinion — central to the True-Prophecy doctrine’s authority claim	”tus Tswv hais tias” — Low risk; must be used consistently to mark direct divine speech, distinguishing it in translation from Jeremiah’s own first-person laments.
new covenant בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה berith chadashah ”a cut/bound pact, new”	The single most theologically load-bearing phrase in the book; anticipates Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3, Hebrews 8-9 ”new covenant,” “new testament” (older English)	Not a different law or different God, but a new mode of relationship — internalized, universally known, fully forgiven	NEW ENTRY — “Kev Cog Lus Tshiab” — Critical risk. See §1.5 Covenant analysis below.
house of Israel and house of Judah בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוּדָה beth Yisrael ve’eth beth Yehudah ”house/household of Israel and house of Judah”	Both halves of the divided kingdom (northern Israel, already fallen to Assyria; southern Judah, Jeremiah’s own audience) “Israel and Judah,” “all Israel”	The New Covenant is promised to the reunited covenant people, not to Judah alone — continuity with Romans 11’s “all Israel will be saved"	"cov Yixalayees thiab cov Yudas” — reuses Romans TM jew entry (cov Yudas) plus the all_israel_will_be_saved entry’s “cov Yixalayees.” Low-Medium risk; must be taught that both houses, historically split, are in view as one restored people.

Jeremiah 31:32

“Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they broke my covenant, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
the covenant I made (cut) הַבְּרִית … אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי ha-berith asher karati ”the covenant which I cut”	Karath berith = “to cut a covenant,” idiom rooted in animal-sacrifice ratification ritual (cf. Gen 15) “made a covenant,” “cut a covenant”	The Sinai covenant was ritually ratified by blood; anticipates the New Covenant’s ratification by Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20)	“kev cog lus uas kuv tau cog” — Medium risk; the “cutting” idiom itself does not transfer literally into Hmong and should be glossed in a teaching note connecting to sacrificial ratification, without inventing a literal “cutting” verb that could suggest violence unrelated to covenant-making.
took them by the hand בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם beyom hechiziqi beyadam ”in the day I grasped/held their hand”	Exodus-deliverance imagery; parental/guiding gesture ”took them by the hand,” “led them by the hand”	Recalls God’s gracious initiative in redeeming Israel from Egypt — grace precedes law	Descriptive phrase, no fixed TM entry needed; reuses general narrative Hmong idiom “tuav tes coj” (take by the hand and lead). Low risk.
they broke my covenant הֵפֵרוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי heferu eth-berithi ”they broke/annulled/frustrated my covenant”	Parar = to break, annul, frustrate, violate ”broke my covenant,” “did not keep my covenant”	The reason the old covenant-mode failed was not a flaw in the covenant’s content but in the people’s unchanged hearts — sets up the New Covenant’s solution (heart-inscription, v.33)	NEW ENTRY — “tsis ua raws li kev cog lus” / “muab kev cog lus tsis quav ntsej” — High risk; must be taught as covenant violation (a serious legal-relational breach), not a minor lapse, to preserve the weight of Judgment-for-Covenant-Unfaithfulness doctrine.
I was their husband וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם ve’anokhi ba’alti bam ”and I was husband/master/lord over them”	Ba’al = to be husband, master, owner, lord — the SAME root as the Canaanite god Baal’s name/title ”I was their husband,” “I was their master”	Deliberately loaded wordplay: the God who was Israel’s true “Baal” (husband/lord) was rejected for the false god Ba’al — the marriage-covenant-unfaithfulness metaphor that runs through Jeremiah 2-3	NEW ENTRY — “kuv yog lawv tus Tswv/txiv” — High risk. Must NOT be transliterated in a way that echoes “Npa-as” (Baal, ch. 2, 7, 11, 19, 23, 32) — the Hebrew wordplay is a feature of the source text but must not be reproduced as a literal pun in Hmong, since doing so risks the opposite effect (associating YHWH’s covenant-headship with the very idol being condemned). Render plainly as marital/lordship headship (“tus Tswv” reusing the Romans lord entry, or “tus txiv” for the marital sense), with a translator’s footnote explaining the Hebrew wordplay rather than attempting to reproduce it.

Jeremiah 31:33

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
I will put my law within them נָתַתִּי אֶת־תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם natati eth-torathi beqirbam ”I will give/place my torah/instruction in their midst/inward parts”	Torah = instruction, teaching, law — the SAME word underlying the Mosaic Law ”put my law in their minds,” “put my law within them”	Doctrinally decisive: this is not a different law replacing the Mosaic Law, but the same moral content of God’s law now internalized rather than externally imposed — continuity, not abolition, of Torah	REUSE Romans TM — “Txoj Kevcai (ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes)” applied here with the added phrase “muab tso rau hauv lawv” (placed within them). Critical risk: the mandatory qualifier “(ntawm Vajtswv / Mauxes)” must still be attached even here, precisely because the doctrinal point is that this is the same divinely-given Law, now internalized — dropping the qualifier or implying a “new law replacing the old” would invert the doctrine.
I will write it on their hearts כְּתַבְתִּיהָ עַל־לִבָּם katabtiah al-libbam ”I will write it upon their heart”	Leb/lebab = heart — in Hebrew anthropology the seat of mind, will, and moral character, not merely emotion ”write it on their hearts,” “put it in their hearts”	The New Covenant’s central mechanism: internal transformation replacing external constraint — the solution to the “deceitful heart” of 17:9 and the “uncircumcised heart” of 4:4	NEW ENTRY — “lub siab” for heart; full phrase “kuv yuav sau rau hauv lawv lub siab” — Critical risk. Hmong siab (liver, seat of will/emotion) is already used idiomatically in the Romans TM (will_of_god, conscience) as the moral-volitional center, which is a strong positive bridge; but this must be explicitly taught as an act only God performs (divine engraving), not a self-achieved moral resolution, to avoid collapsing back into the moralism risk already flagged for justify_reckon_as_righteous in the Romans baseline.
I will be their God, and they shall be my people וְהָיִיתִי לָה�ם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם vehayithi lahem le’Elohim vehemah yihyu-li le’am ”and I will be to them for God, and they will be to me for a people”	The covenant-formula (Bundesformel) repeated throughout Torah, Prophets, and echoed in Rev 21:3, 2 Cor 6:16 ”I will be their God and they will be my people”	The relational heart of every covenant God makes — belonging, not merely legal status	NEW ENTRY — “Kuv yuav ua nej tus Vajtswv, thiab nej yuav ua kuv haiv neeg” — Critical risk; must be rendered identically at every occurrence throughout Scripture-referencing curriculum content (Ex 6:7; Jer 24:7; 30:22; 31:1,33; 32:38; Ezek 36:28; 37:27; Rev 21:3), since it is the fixed covenant-relationship formula.

Jeremiah 31:34

“And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Terms	Variants	Contextual Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Know the LORD דְּעוּ אֶת־יְהוָה de’u eth-YHWH ”know YHWH!” (imperative)	Yada = to know — covers cognitive knowledge, experiential acquaintance, AND intimate/relational knowing (the same verb used of marital intimacy, Gen 4:1) “know the LORD,” “know Yahweh”	Under the New Covenant, knowledge of God will no longer require priestly/prophetic mediation for the basics of covenant relationship — universal, immediate access	NEW ENTRY — “paub Vajtswv” — Critical risk; must be taught as relational, covenantal knowing (trust and intimacy), not mere factual awareness that God exists, paralleling but distinct from the Romans faith_believe entry (kev ntseeg/ntseeg) — the two terms should be taught together as complementary, not merged into one.
from the least … to the greatest מִקְטַנָּם וְעַד־גְּדוֹלָם miqtannam ve’ad gedolam ”from their small one(s) to their great one(s)“	Merism for total social inclusion regardless of status ”from the least to the greatest”	Universality of New-Covenant knowledge cuts across all social/economic/age stratification — no privileged class of covenant-knowers	Descriptive phrase, reuses standard Hmong merism construction “txij tus me tshaj mus rau tus loj tshaj.” Low risk.
I will forgive their iniquity אֶסְלַח לַעֲוֺנָם eslach la’avonam ”I will forgive/pardon their guilt/iniquity”	Salach = forgive — used in the Hebrew Bible EXCLUSIVELY of God forgiving (never interchangeably for one human forgiving another); avon = iniquity, guilt, a “bent/twisted” moral condition ”forgive their iniquity,” “pardon their wrongdoing”	The New Covenant’s forgiveness is total and is God’s exclusive prerogative to grant — anticipates the propitiation_atoning_sacrifice doctrine fulfilled in Christ	NEW ENTRY — “zam txim” — Critical risk; already the standard Hmong Christian term for divine forgiveness, but must be explicitly taught (per the salach distinction) as something only God does and only God can do — not a symmetrical human-forgiving-human transaction, and not achieved through ritual restitution (contrast with the Hmong customary-fault-reparation framework already flagged as a collision risk for sin_act_and_condition in the Romans baseline).
I will remember their sin no more חַטָּאתָם לֹא אֶזְכֹּר־עוֹד chattatam lo ezkor-od ”their sin I will not remember again”	Zakar = remember — in covenant contexts, “to remember” means to act upon, not merely to recall mentally; chattah/chet = sin, literally “missing the mark" "remember their sin no more,” “will not hold their sin against them”	God’s covenantal “forgetting” is an active choice never to bring the sin to legal account again — the forensic ground of assurance under the New Covenant	NEW ENTRY — “yuav tsis nco qab lawv tej kev txhaum ntxiv li lawm” — reuses Romans TM sin_act_and_condition (txhaum/kev txhaum) for “sin”; High risk on the “remember” verb specifically, because a literal Hmong reading of “tsis nco qab” (forgot/does not remember) could be misheard as God’s memory being deficient rather than a sovereign covenantal choice not to prosecute the sin again — requires a teaching note distinguishing covenantal non-remembrance from ordinary forgetfulness.

§1.5 Covenant (berith) — Cross-Verse Term Study

berith (בְּרִית) occurs in all four core verses and is the doctrinal hinge-term of the whole book’s New Covenant material (also chs. 11, 14, 22, 32-35). It has no dedicated entry in the Romans TM — Romans discusses promise (epangelia → lus cog tseg) but never covenant (berith/diathēkē) as a distinct lexical item, since Paul’s Greek vocabulary in Romans happens not to require it as a standalone term. This is therefore a genuinely new addition to the Language Package, not a reuse.

• Literal meaning: a binding pact, historically ratified by a blood rite (“cutting”).
• Semantic range: covenant between God and a people (Sinai, Davidic, New); occasionally a covenant between two human parties (marriage is treated as a berith, Mal 2:14, echoed in Jer 31:32’s “husband” language).
• English variants: covenant, testament, pact, agreement.
• Hmong rendering: NEW ENTRY — “kev cog lus” (the act/state of a solemn, binding pact) — chosen over the Romans TM’s existing “lus cog tseg” (promise) to preserve the distinction Jeremiah requires between a general pledge (promise) and a formally ratified, binding relational bond (covenant). “Lus cog tseg” remains reserved for promise per the Romans baseline and must NOT be used interchangeably for berith.
• Risk: Critical. Hmong culture has a genuine positive bridge — solemn betrothal pacts, clan-alliance oath-agreements (also called forms of “cog lus” in customary usage) — but this bridge carries two risks requiring explicit teaching: (1) traditional Hmong “cog lus” agreements are typically bilateral and revocable by mutual breach, whereas the New Covenant, though violated by Israel (31:32), is unilaterally sustained by God’s own initiative (31:31, “I will make”); (2) any resonance with ancestral oath-taking or spirit-invoked pacts must be avoided — the covenant here is with the one true God (Vajtswv), never invoking ancestor-spirits as witnesses, unlike some traditional Hmong oath ceremonies. [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: confirm no ritual-oath vocabulary from ua neeb/txiv neeb practice inadvertently attaches to "kev cog lus" in any generated teaching content].
• Related NEW ENTRIES: “Kev Cog Lus Tshiab” (new covenant, Critical); “Kev Cog Lus Qub” (the former/Sinai covenant, Medium, contrastive only — never to be taught as discarded or worthless, since its content is fulfilled/internalized, not nullified).

---

§2. CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER STUDY OF THE WHOLE BOOK (Jeremiah 1-52)

Chapter 1 — The Call of Jeremiah

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
prophet נָבִיא / nabi ”one who is called/one who speaks forth”	Authorized spokesperson receiving and relaying divine speech; distinct from diviners/seers of surrounding cultures prophet	Central office for two assigned doctrines (Weeping Prophet; False vs. True Prophecy)	NEW ENTRY — “tus Cev Vajtswv Lus” (one who speaks on behalf of God) — Critical risk. Hmong oral tradition includes the legendary figure Yaj Saub, a culture-hero/seer associated with prophecy of a future messianic deliverer and a promised new script for the Hmong people; this legend has already influenced some Hmong Christian and syncretic-messianic movements. Bare “Yaj Saub” is forbidden as a rendering of nabi without extensive contrastive teaching, since it would import an entire alternate folk-messianic narrative. The descriptive phrase “tus Cev Vajtswv Lus” is chosen instead to keep the office anchored to Vajtswv explicitly.
before I formed you in the womb I knew you בְּטֶרֶם אֶצָּרְךָ בַבֶּטֶן יְדַעְתִּיךָ / yada ”I knew” (yada, same root as 31:34’s “know the LORD”)	Foreordaining, personal, pre-natal divine knowledge/choice foreknew, knew beforehand	Direct parallel to Romans 8:29’s foreknowledge doctrine	REUSE Romans TM — “twb paub ua ntej lawm” (foreknow_predestine). Same High-risk caution applies: never rendered with hmoov (fate) vocabulary.
consecrated/set apart הִקְדַּשְׁתִּיךָ / hiqdashtikha ”I made you holy/set apart”	Cultic-prophetic consecration to an office, distinct from moral sanctification consecrated, set apart, appointed	Jeremiah’s prophetic calling precedes his birth and his own choice	NEW ENTRY — “raug muab cais tseg ua tus Cev Vajtswv Lus” — Medium risk; must be distinguished from the Romans TM sanctification entry (kev raug ua kom dawb huv), which concerns ongoing moral transformation of all believers, not a one-time prophetic office-appointment.
to build and to plant, to pluck up and break down לִנְתוֹשׁ וְלִנְתוֹץ, לְהַאֲבִיד וְלַהֲרוֹס, לִבְנוֹת וְלִנְטוֹעַ six-verb covenant-lawsuit/sovereignty formula	Total divine authority over the rise and fall of nations ”to build and to plant, to pull down and destroy”	Establishes Jeremiah’s mandate over “nations and kingdoms” (1:10) — foundational for the Sovereign-Plans doctrine	NEW ENTRY — “rho tawm thiab rhuav tshem, ua kom puas tsuaj thiab ua kom vau, tsim thiab cog” — Medium risk, descriptive; no traditional-religion collision, but must be taught as sovereign historical action, not cosmic fatalism.
boiling pot / almond rod (sign-visions) סִיר נָפוּחַ; מַקֵּל שָׁקֵד (shaqed, wordplay on “shoqed,” watching) visionary signs	Symbolic confirmation of the prophetic word boiling pot, almond branch	Confirms imminent judgment from the north	Descriptive imagery, comprehension-gap only, Low-Medium risk. The shaqed/shoqed wordplay is untranslatable and requires a translator’s footnote rather than a forced Hmong pun: [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: untranslatable Hebrew wordplay, footnote required].

Chapter 2 — Israel’s Harlotry and Forsaken Fountain

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
spiritual harlotry (idolatry as adultery) זָנָה / zanah ”to play the harlot”	Covenant-breaking idolatry figured as marital infidelity harlotry, whoredom, unfaithfulness	The dominant metaphor for Judgment-for-Covenant-Unfaithfulness across chs. 2-3, 5, 13, 23	NEW ENTRY — “kev ua nkauj rau luag dab” (playing the harlot after other spirits/gods) — High risk; must always be taught as a covenant-betrayal metaphor, never merely a private sexual-morality issue, and must be kept distinct from the neutral noun idol (dab mlom, already fixed in Romans TM).
forsaken fountain of living water מְקוֹר מַיִם חַיִּים / meqor mayim chayim ”spring/source of living water”	God as the sole source of life-sustaining relationship, contrasted with man-made “broken cisterns” fountain of living water	Idolatry is depicted as an act of self-destructive folly, not merely disobedience	Reuses the life-imagery underlying Romans TM eternal_life (txoj sia nyob mus ib txhis); rendered “dej muaj sia nyob” — Low-Medium risk, positive bridge, no collision.
Baal בַּעַל / Ba’al proper name; also “lord/husband/master”	Canaanite storm-and-fertility deity Baal	The rival “husband” to YHWH’s true covenant-headship (cf. 31:32 wordplay)	Transliterated proper noun “Npa-as” — Low risk as a proper name; cross-referenced with the ba'al-as-title caution flagged at 31:32 above.

Chapter 3 — The Divorce Metaphor and the Call to Return

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
certificate of divorce סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת / sefer keritut ”document/bill of cutting-off”	Ancient Near Eastern legal instrument formally ending a marriage bill of divorce	Israel’s idolatry is so severe God could have justly issued formal covenant-divorce, yet instead calls her to return	NEW ENTRY — “ntawv sib nrauj” — Medium risk, comprehension gap (concrete ANE legal custom, not identical to Hmong divorce practice) rather than a doctrinal collision; needs an explanatory note, not a lexical fix.
return / repent שׁוּב / shuv ”to turn, to turn back”	The dominant OT repentance-verb; covers both literal return from exile and moral/relational turning back to God return, repent, turn back	Central invitation of chs. 3-4, echoed at Restoration-after-Exile passages (chs. 29-31)	NEW ENTRY — “tig rov qab los cuag Vajtswv” — Medium risk; positive, clear idiom with no traditional-religion collision identified, but should be distinguished in teaching from the Romans TM renewal_of_the_mind (hloov siab tshiab), which describes ongoing Spirit-wrought transformation rather than this decisive turning/return act.

Chapter 4 — Circumcise Your Hearts

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskin of your hearts הִמֹּלוּ לַיהוָה וְהָסִרוּ עָרְלוֹת לְבַבְכֶם / himmolu … orloth lebabkhem ”circumcise… foreskins of your heart”	Metaphorical extension of the literal covenant-sign of circumcision to the moral/volitional organ circumcise your hearts	Anticipates 31:33’s heart-inscription; the problem is not the absence of the covenant sign but an unchanged inner disposition	NEW ENTRY — “kev txiav lub siab” — extends the Romans TM circumcision entry (kev txiav raws li Txoj Kevcai Mauxes) to a metaphorical referent. High risk; must be explicitly taught as figurative (removal of moral stubbornness), never as advocating a literal rite performed on the heart, and must be linked forward to the New Covenant’s heart-transformation promise.
wash your heart from evil כַּבְּסִי מֵרָעָה לִבֵּךְ / kabbesi mera’ah libbekh ”wash your heart from evil”	Purification imagery applied to the moral will wash your heart	Calls for internal, not merely ritual, cleansing	Descriptive phrase reusing lub siab (heart, established above); “ntxuav lub siab kom tseg qhov phem” — Medium-High risk: must not be taught as implying a repeatable ritual washing (cf. the Romans TM baptism/sanctification cautions against ritual-cleansing misreadings).

Chapter 5 — Reviewed

No new load-bearing theological vocabulary; reuses ch. 2-4 terms (harlotry, covenant-breaking, sin/txhaum).

Chapter 6 — False Peace

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
”Peace, peace,” when there is no peace שָׁלוֹם שָׁלוֹם וְאֵין שָׁלוֹם / shalom shalom ve’en shalom ”peace, peace, and there is no peace”	Ironic/negated repetition of the ordinary word for peace/wholeness, put in the mouth of false prophets and priests (repeated 8:11) “peace, peace, when there is no peace”	The signature diagnostic line for the False-Prophets-versus-True-Prophecy doctrine: false religious leaders minimize the crisis and mask coming judgment	REUSE Romans TM word kev thaj yeeb (peace, Low risk in its normal usage) but flagged here as a High-risk ironic/negated usage: “lawv hais tias ‘muaj kev thaj yeeb, muaj kev thaj yeeb,’ tiamsis tsis muaj kev thaj yeeb li” — the false-prophecy context must be made unmistakable (e.g., via surrounding narration) so that hearers do not conclude the word itself is suspect elsewhere in Scripture, where it remains entirely positive and stable.

Chapter 7 — The Temple Sermon

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
trust in these deceptive words (false security in the Temple) בָּטְחוּ לָכֶם עַל־דִּבְרֵי הַשָּׁקֶר / batchu lakhem al-divre hashaqer ”trust yourselves in lying/deceptive words”	Misplaced confidence in ritual/institutional presence rather than covenant obedience trust in deceptive words	Warns against assuming God’s presence in the Temple guarantees safety regardless of covenant-faithfulness	NEW ENTRY — “vam khom lub Tuam Tsev” (trusting the Temple building itself) — Medium risk, comprehension-level; teaches against ritual/institutional false-security, a transferable warning with no specific Hmong traditional-religion collision.
den of robbers מְעָרַת פָּרִצִים / me’arat paritsim ”cave/den of violent men”	Corruption of a sacred place into a refuge for wrongdoing (quoted by Jesus, Matt 21:13) den of robbers	Sharp indictment of religious hypocrisy	”qhov chaw nkaum ntawm cov tub sab” — Low-comprehension idiom, no collision.
child sacrifice at Topheth הַתֹּפֶת; לְהַעֲבִיר… בָּאֵשׁ / ha-Tofet; leha’avir ba’esh ”to pass through the fire”	Actual historical practice of child sacrifice to Baal/Molech condemned repeatedly (7:31; 19:5; 32:35) burning children as offerings, child sacrifice	The most extreme form of idolatrous covenant-unfaithfulness; used to contrast false, atrocity-producing worship with true worship	NEW ENTRY — “kev muab menyuam fij rau dab” — High risk; must be sharply and explicitly distinguished from the Romans TM’s living_sacrifice (khoom fij uas muaj txoj sia nyob) and propitiation_atoning_sacrifice (qhov theej txhoj kev txhaum) — this is condemned atrocity, never to be assimilated into any positive sacrificial-offering vocabulary.

Chapter 8 — Reviewed

Introduces only minor rhetorical imagery (balm of Gilead, physician — 8:22, “kws tshuaj/tshuaj noj tshuaj hlab”) at Low risk, comprehension-level only; no doctrinally load-bearing new term. Reuses judgment/sin vocabulary from chs. 1-7.

Chapter 9 — Boasting Only in Knowing the LORD

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
let him who boasts, boast in this, that he understands and knows me הַמִּתְהַלֵּל יִתְהַלֵּל בְּזֹאת הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדֹעַ אֹתִי / yada ”understanding and knowing me”	Direct thematic anticipation of 31:34’s “know the LORD” boast in knowing the LORD	Reorients legitimate boasting away from wisdom/might/wealth toward relational knowledge of God	REUSE Romans TM boasting (kev khav theeb) combined with the NEW ENTRY paub Vajtswv (know the LORD) established at 31:34. Medium risk; a good cross-book consistency anchor.

Chapter 10 — The LORD versus Idols

Reuses Romans TM idol (dab mlom) and creation (tej uas raug tsim los) extensively (contrast between the living Creator and lifeless idols, vv.1-16).

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Creator of all things עֹשֵׂה הַכֹּל / oseh hakol ”maker of everything”	Divine title asserting sole creatorship, contrasted with man-made idols maker of all things	Grounds the futility polemic against idolatry in the Original-Sin/Idolatry doctrine’s Romans 1 parallel	NEW ENTRY — “tus Tsim Ib Puas Tsav Yam” — Low-Medium risk, stable descriptive title; strong cross-reference to Romans 1:20-25’s idolatry argument.

Chapter 11 — The Broken Covenant and Conspiracy Against Jeremiah

Reuses kev cog lus (covenant, established §1.5) — “they did not obey the words of this covenant” (11:3-8).

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
conspiracy קֶשֶׁר / qesher ”a binding together, plot”	A plot against Jeremiah’s life by his own townspeople (11:18-23) conspiracy	Foreshadows the Cost-of-Faithful-Ministry doctrine’s persecution theme	NEW ENTRY — “kev tuavtes ntxeev siab” — Medium risk, descriptive, no collision.

Chapter 12 — Reviewed

Theodicy question (“why do the wicked prosper,” 12:1) reuses the Romans TM ungodly (tus tsis hwm Vajtswv) conceptual field; no new dedicated term required.

Chapter 13 — The Linen Loincloth Sign

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
linen loincloth (sign-act) אֵזוֹר / ezor ”waistband, belt”	An enacted prophecy: a ruined loincloth pictures Judah’s ruined pride/intimacy with God linen belt, loincloth	Sign-acts are a recurring prophetic-communication device across the book (also chs. 16, 19, 27-28, 32)	NEW ENTRY (general category) — “tej txheej txheem qhia txog yav tom ntej” (symbolic enacted sign) as the umbrella term, with “daim ntaub sev” for this specific object. Low-Medium risk, comprehension-gap only.

Chapter 14 — Reviewed

Drought and false prophets “prophesying lies” reuse the false_prophet term (established ch. 23 below) and general judgment vocabulary; no new dedicated term beyond drought imagery (“kev nqhis dej,” Low risk, descriptive).

Chapter 15 — Reviewed

Jeremiah’s personal complaint and the “if you return, I will restore you” conditional (15:19) reuse tig rov qab (return) and kev coj rov qab los (restoration, established ch. 29-31 below); no new dedicated term.

Chapter 16 — Forbidden Mourning as a Sign

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
do not lament, do not mourn for them לֹא־תִסְפֹּד לָהֶם וְלֹא תִבְכֶּה / lo tispod … lo tibkeh ”do not lament… do not weep”	Jeremiah is forbidden the normal funerary lament as a sign that judgment will be too vast and swift for customary mourning rites forbidden mourning	Inverts the weeping-prophet motif: sometimes faithfulness means withholding lament as a prophetic sign, not merely performing it	Reuses the weeping/lament term established at ch. 20 below, applied negatively; Medium risk — needs a teaching note explaining this exceptional sign-act, since it might otherwise seem to contradict Jeremiah’s own characteristic grief.

Chapter 17 — The Deceitful Heart and True Trust

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
the heart is deceitful above all things עָקֹב הַלֵּב מִכֹּל / aqov ha-leb mikol ”the heart is crooked/twisted beyond everything”	The most severe OT statement of the heart’s moral corruption ”the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick”	Sets up exactly the problem the New Covenant’s heart-writing (31:33) is designed to solve	Reuses lub siab (heart, established §1). High risk; must always be taught in tandem with 31:33’s hope of divine heart-transformation, so as not to leave hearers with an unresolved anthropological despair.
cursed is the man who trusts in man … blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD בָּרוּךְ הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר יִבְטַח בַּיהוָה / batach ”trusts, has confidence in”	Wisdom-style contrast between two fundamentally different objects of ultimate trust trust in man vs. trust in the LORD	Reinforces the exclusivity of covenant loyalty	NEW ENTRY — “vam khom neeg” vs. “vam khom Vajtswv” — Medium risk, clear contrastive idiom, minimal collision risk.
Sabbath שַׁבָּת / shabbat ”cessation, rest day”	Sign of covenant loyalty in the historical narrative of 17:19-27 Sabbath	Covenant-keeping expressed concretely through Sabbath observance	Reuses the established Hmong Christian loanword/term “hnub Xanpataus” — Low risk, stable.

Chapter 18 — The Potter and the Clay

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
potter / clay יוֹצֵר / חֹמֶר; yatsar / chomer ”one who forms/shapes”; “clay, mud”	Sovereignty metaphor: the potter’s freedom to reshape marred clay potter, clay	Direct Old Testament background for Romans 9’s “vessel of mercy/wrath” (skeuos) argument — a key cross-Testament doctrinal bridge for Election and Sovereignty of God	NEW ENTRY — “tus Kws Puab Av thiab cov Av Nplaum” — High risk (elevated because it directly underlies the Election/Sovereignty doctrine, which the Romans baseline already flags Critical for its hmoov/fate collision risk). Must be taught with the SAME caution already established in the Romans baseline for election_choose and vessel_of_mercy_wrath: God’s sovereign freedom over the clay must never be flattened into impersonal fate (hmoov), and Jeremiah 18:7-10’s conditional language (the potter responds to the clay’s repentance/rebellion) must be preserved to keep human responsibility intact alongside divine sovereignty.

Chapter 19 — The Broken Flask Sign

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
broken flask בַּקְבֻּק / baqbuq ”a potter’s narrow-necked jar”	Enacted sign of irreversible judgment (once broken, cannot be mended) broken flask/jar	Reinforces the finality dimension of covenant judgment	NEW ENTRY — “lub hwj dej tawg” — Low-Medium risk, comprehension-gap sign-act, no collision.

Chapter 20 — Jeremiah’s Lament and the Cost of Ministry

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
weeping / lament בָּכָה / קִינָה; bakah / qinah ”to weep”; “a dirge, funeral lament”	Jeremiah’s characteristic personal grief over both his own suffering and Judah’s coming judgment (also chs. 8-9, 13-14, 31) weeping, lament, complaint	Foundational for the “Weeping Prophet” doctrine — faithful ministry entails real, costly personal anguish, not detached duty	NEW ENTRY — “kev quaj ntsuag” — Medium risk; a genuinely positive cultural bridge to the existing Hmong funeral-lament tradition (kwv txhiaj, sung laments of grief), which gives hearers an immediate emotional register for Jeremiah’s voice. Requires a teaching note distinguishing prophetic lament over covenant sin and coming judgment from ordinary funerary mourning, so the doctrine is not reduced to generic grief.
a fire shut up in my bones וְהָיָה בְלִבִּי כְּאֵש עָצֺר בְּעַצְמֹתָי / esh atsur be’atsmotai ”a fire held back/confined in my bones”	Compulsion to speak the divine word despite personal cost and social rejection fire in my bones	Vivid image of the involuntary, Spirit-driven nature of true prophetic ministry	Descriptive imagery; “zoo li muaj ib qho hluavtaws kub nyob hauv kuv pob txha” — Medium risk, comprehension-gap only.

Chapter 21 — Reviewed

Siege narrative; reuses judgment, sword/famine/pestilence vocabulary consistent across chs. 21, 24, 27, 32, 34, 38 — no new dedicated term.

Chapter 22 — The Condemned Kings

Proper nouns (Shallum/Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin/Coniah) — Low risk transliterations, reviewed but no new theological vocabulary beyond terms already established (righteousness, justice — reusing Romans TM righteousness_of_god_righteous).

Chapter 23 — False Shepherds, False Prophets, and the Righteous Branch

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
false prophet הַנְּבִיאִים… שָׁקֶר / hannevi’im … shaqer ”the prophets… falsehood/lie”	Prophets who speak from their own hearts, dreams, or plagiarize one another, not from YHWH’s council (23:16-32) false prophet	Core term for the False-Prophets-versus-True-Prophecy doctrine	NEW ENTRY — “tus Cev Vajtswv Lus Cuav” — High risk; must always carry the “cuav” (false/counterfeit) qualifier and never appear as bare “tus Cev Vajtswv Lus,” to keep true and false prophetic office lexically distinct at every occurrence. Ties to Hmong shamanic-diviner practice (txiv neeb, ua neeb saib) as the real-world referent Jeremiah is implicitly contrasted against; must be taught as source-confusion (claiming YHWH’s authority without His commission), not neutral religious pluralism.
dream vs. word חָלַם / דָּבָר; chalam / dabar ”to dream”; “word”	Jeremiah 23:28 explicitly contrasts a prophet with a mere dream against one with YHWH’s actual word dream vs. word	Establishes a discernment criterion: subjective dream-experience is not self-authenticating prophetic authority	NEW ENTRY — “npau suav” (dream) vs. reuse of Vajtswv Txoj Lus (word of the LORD) — Medium risk, discernment-teaching term.
the righteous Branch צֶמַח צַדִּיק / tsemach tsaddiq ”a righteous sprout/shoot”	Messianic-Davidic royal title (also 33:15) the Branch, righteous Branch	Messianic hope embedded within the judgment oracles — the coming righteous King who will “execute justice and righteousness”	NEW ENTRY — “tus Ceg Ncaj Ncees” — Critical risk; must preserve the messianic/Davidic-kingship sense (not merely botanical “sprout”), and must reuse the Romans TM’s righteousness_of_god_righteous root (ncaj ncees) so that the Branch’s “righteousness” is understood in continuity with the forensic/relational righteousness vocabulary already fixed for the whole Language Package.
”The LORD is our righteousness” יְהוָה צִדְקֵנוּ / YHWH Tsidqenu ”YHWH [is] our righteousness”	Divine-royal title given to the coming Davidic king (23:6; reprised 33:16 of Jerusalem itself) The LORD Our Righteousness	Direct terminological bridge to the entire Justification-by-Faith doctrine of Romans	NEW ENTRY — “Tus Tswv Yog Peb Txoj Kev Ncaj Ncees” — Critical risk; must reuse the EXACT Romans TM phrase “Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees” as its root, since this is the single clearest verbal bridge in Jeremiah into the Romans righteousness doctrine — any drift from the fixed Romans phrase here would sever that intended cross-Testament resonance.
burden [of the LORD] מַשָּׂא / massa ”burden” AND “oracle” (deliberate pun)	Jeremiah 23:33-40 plays on the double meaning of massa to mock those who cynically ask “what is the burden/oracle of the LORD today?“ burden, oracle	Untranslatable wordplay illustrating prophetic-word abuse	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED: untranslatable Hebrew pun massa "burden/oracle"; footnote required, no fixed Hmong rendering attempted].

Chapter 24 — Good Figs and Bad Figs

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
good figs / bad figs תְּאֵנִים טֹבוֹת… רָעוֹת / te’enim tovoth … ra’oth ”good figs… bad figs”	Vision distinguishing the exiles taken to Babylon (good, destined for restoration) from those remaining/fleeing to Egypt (bad, destined for further judgment) good figs, bad figs	Complicates a simplistic “exile = worst outcome” reading; ties into both Judgment and Hope-of-Restoration doctrines	NEW ENTRY — “cov txiv ncuav qoob zoo / cov txiv ncuav qoob phem” — Low-comprehension risk (fig-fruit imagery), no traditional-religion collision; requires only an illustrative note if figs are unfamiliar.

Chapter 25 — Seventy Years and the Cup of Wrath

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
cup of [my] wrath כּוֹס הַחֵמָה / kos hachemah ”cup of the wrath/fury”	Vivid judicial-judgment metaphor: nations are made to “drink” God’s wrath in succession cup of wrath	Reinforces the Judgment doctrine’s cosmic, not merely national, scope (echoed in Rev 14:10, 16:19)	NEW ENTRY — “lub khob cawv ntawm Vajtswv txoj kev npau taws” — reuses Romans TM wrath_of_god (kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv) with the added cup-vessel imagery. Medium-High risk; must retain the Romans-established caution that this wrath is righteous and judicial, not capricious ancestor/spirit anger remedied by ritual appeasement.
seventy years שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה / shiv’im shanah concrete prophesied duration of exile	Fulfilled historically (2 Chron 36:21; Dan 9:2) seventy years	Anchors prophetic reliability — a key plank of the True-Prophecy doctrine, since this specific, falsifiable prediction was later vindicated	Concrete numeral, Low risk, no rendering issue.

Chapter 26 — The Temple Sermon Reprise and Uriah’s Martyrdom

Reuses ch. 7’s Temple-sermon vocabulary. Uriah’s execution for faithful prophesying (26:20-23) is a direct exemplar for the Cost-of-Faithful-Ministry doctrine; no new dedicated term, but this narrative should be cross-referenced in any lesson teaching that doctrine alongside Jeremiah’s own sufferings (chs. 20, 37-38).

Chapter 27 — The Yoke of Babylon

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
yoke מוֹטָה / motah ”a bar, yoke” (ox-yoke)	Sign-act: Jeremiah wears a literal yoke to dramatize the call to submit to Babylonian rule as God’s appointed instrument of discipline yoke	Ties Judgment doctrine to the Sovereign-Plans doctrine: submission to a pagan empire is here paradoxically obedience to YHWH’s revealed will	NEW ENTRY — “tus quab” (ox-yoke) — Medium risk, positive agricultural-cultural bridge.
”my servant Nebuchadnezzar” (27:6; also 25:9) עַבְדִּי נְבוּכַדְרֶאצַּר / avdi Nevukhadretsar ”my servant”	God calling a pagan foreign king His “servant”/instrument of judgment my servant	Demonstrates that God’s sovereignty extends over pagan rulers, using them instrumentally without implying their covenant relationship or salvation	[TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] — do NOT reuse the Romans TM servant_slave_doulos (qhev) bare for this referent, since that term is anchored to willing, honored bondservice to Christ (Rom 1:1) and would be badly mismatched applied to an unbelieving foreign king used merely as a disciplinary instrument. Recommend a distinct descriptive phrase such as “tus uas Vajtswv siv ua cuab yeej” (the one God uses as an instrument) pending formal TM-revision review.

Chapter 28 — Hananiah’s False Prophecy

Reuses tus Cev Vajtswv Lus Cuav (false prophet, ch. 23) and tus quab (yoke, ch. 27) — Hananiah breaks Jeremiah’s wooden yoke and falsely proclaims imminent deliverance; Jeremiah replies with a prophecy of an iron yoke and Hananiah’s death within the year (fulfilled, 28:17) — a direct narrative test-case for the True-vs-False-Prophecy doctrine’s fulfillment criterion. No new dedicated term beyond these reuses.

Chapter 29 — The Letter to the Exiles: God’s Plans for Welfare

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
plans for welfare, and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope מַחְשְׁבוֹת שָׁלוֹם וְלֹא לְרָעָה… תִּקְוָה / machshevoth shalom ”thoughts/plans of peace/welfare”	God’s sovereign, benevolent intention for the exiles’ long-term future (29:11) plans for welfare, plans to prosper you	The signature verse for the God’s-Sovereign-Plans doctrine	NEW ENTRY — “Vajtswv tej Homphiaj” (God’s purposes/plans) — High risk, elevated for the SAME reason the Romans baseline flags election_choose and will_of_god as risk-bearing: the natural Hmong temptation is to hear “plans/fortune for you” through the hmoov (impersonal fate) lens. Per the Romans baseline’s PERMANENTLY FORBIDDEN rule on hmoov vocabulary for personal divine choice/purpose, this prohibition is extended explicitly to this term: hmoov must never render machshevoth here.
seek the welfare (shalom) of the city דִּרְשׁוּ אֶת־שְׁלוֹם הָעִיר / dirshu eth-shelom ha’ir ”seek the peace/welfare of the city”	Civic-welfare sense of shalom, reusing the Romans TM peace entry in a new, this-worldly civic context seek the welfare of the city	Extends covenant faithfulness into exile-era civic engagement, not withdrawal	Reuses Romans TM kev thaj yeeb (peace) — Low-Medium risk, positive extension; no collision, distinct from ch. 6’s ironic “false peace” usage — the two uses must not be confused.

Chapter 30 — The Book of Consolation Begins

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
restore the fortunes שׁוּב שְׁבוּת / shuv shevut (“I will restore/turn the captivity/fortunes of…“) idiom meaning “reverse the reversal,” bring back to a former good state	restoration formula recurring at 30:3,18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7,11,26 restore the fortunes, bring back from captivity	Central formula of the Hope-of-Restoration-after-Exile doctrine	NEW ENTRY — “kev coj rov qab los / kev pub kom vam meej dua” — Medium risk. Must NOT be rendered with hmoov (“fortune” in the English gloss could tempt a fate-based Hmong mistranslation); this is a deliberate, sovereign, covenant-keeping act of God, not a reversal of impersonal luck. This prohibition parallels and extends the Romans baseline’s forbidden-substitution rule for election_choose/will_of_god.
Jacob’s trouble צָרַת יַעֲקֹב / tsarath Ya’aqov ”distress/trouble of Jacob”	Poetic name for the intense national suffering of exile time of Jacob’s trouble	Names the depth of the judgment from which restoration will come	Descriptive phrase, Low-comprehension risk.

Chapter 31 — The New Covenant Chapter (Core Passage + Surrounding Context)

Verses 31-34 receive full verse-by-verse treatment in §1 above. Surrounding material in the same chapter:

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
Rachel weeping for her children רָחֵל מְבַכָּה עַל־בָּנֶיהָ / Rachel mevakkah al-baneha ”Rachel weeping over her sons”	Poetic personification of exiled/lost Israel’s mothers’ grief (31:15; quoted Matt 2:18) Rachel weeping	Interweaves the weeping-prophet motif with communal, maternal national grief, immediately followed by a promise of return (31:16-17)	Reuses kev quaj ntsuag (weeping/lament, established ch. 20); transliterated proper noun for Rachel provisional pending established-tradition verification. Medium risk, comprehension/proper-noun level.
Ephraim as God’s dear/beloved son אֶפְרַיִם… בֵּן יַקִּיר / Efrayim ben yaqqir ”precious/dear son”	Tender paternal affection for repentant Israel (31:20) dear son, darling child	Reinforces the covenant-formula’s relational warmth ahead of vv.31-34	Reuses Romans TM affective-relational vocabulary consistent with love (kev hlub) and father_god (Leej Txiv); Low-Medium risk.
ransom/redeem פָּדָה / גָּאַל; padah / ga’al ”to ransom, redeem, buy back”	Legal-economic redemption vocabulary (31:11) ransomed, redeemed	Direct OT background for the Romans TM redemption entry	REUSE Romans TM kev txhiv — Low-Medium risk, strong positive continuity; reinforces the economic-legal bridge already documented in the Romans baseline via Hmong debt-redemption custom.

Chapter 32 — The Field Purchase Sign-Act

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
kinsman-redemption (right of redemption) גְּאֻלָּה / geullah (from ga’al) “the right/act of redemption by a near kinsman”	Concrete legal custom: Jeremiah buys his cousin’s field as an act of faith that land will again be owned in Judah after exile right of redemption, redeem the field	A literal legal-economic enactment of the same ga'al root underlying the Romans TM redemption entry — an excellent concrete OT anchor for that doctrine	Reuses Romans TM kev txhiv (redemption); Low-Medium risk, strong positive continuity with the field-purchase narrative providing a vivid concrete illustration for teaching.
nothing is too hard for the LORD הֲיִפָּלֵא מִמֶּנִּי כֹּל דָּבָר / haypale mimmeni kol davar ”is anything too difficult/wonderful for me”	Sovereignty affirmation bracketing the sign-act (32:17, 27) nothing is too hard for the LORD	Grounds the field-purchase’s seeming absurdity (buying land amid a losing siege) in God’s unlimited sovereign power	REUSE Romans TM hwjchim, always qualified as “Vajtswv hwjchim” — Low-Medium risk given the qualifier is already mandatory and well-established; reused correctly here.

Chapter 33 — The Branch and the Covenant with Day and Night

Reuses tus Ceg Ncaj Ncees (righteous Branch, ch. 23) and Tus Tswv Yog Peb Txoj Kev Ncaj Ncees (LORD our righteousness, ch. 23, here applied to Jerusalem itself, 33:16).

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
covenant with day and night בְּרִיתִי הַיּוֹם וּבְרִיתִי הַלָּיְלָה / berithi hayom u-berithi hallaylah ”my covenant of the day and my covenant of the night”	God’s fixed created order (day/night cycle) used as the guarantee-analogy for the certainty of His covenant promises to David and Israel covenant of day and night	Reinforces covenant certainty through a creation-order analogy — useful teaching bridge for the reliability of the New Covenant itself	Reuses kev cog lus (covenant, §1.5) in an extended creation-order sense; Medium risk, comprehension-level, positive teaching bridge, no collision.

Chapter 34 — The Broken Covenant of Release

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
release/liberty [of slaves] דְּרוֹר / derror ”freedom, release” (Sabbatical/Jubilee manumission law)	Judah proclaims release of Hebrew slaves under covenant law, then reneges (34:8-22) liberty, release, freedom	A test-case of covenant-unfaithfulness specifically regarding the LITERAL institution of slavery, providing a rare context where the Romans TM servant_slave_doulos (qhev) is used in its bare, literal chattel-slavery sense (unlike its metaphorical “willing bondservant to Christ” use in Romans)	Reuses Romans TM qhev correctly in its literal sense here: “kev tso cov qhev kom dawb noj dawb nyob” (releasing slaves to freedom). Medium risk; this chapter is a valuable teaching contrast showing both senses of qhev (literal chattel bondage here vs. honored voluntary bondservice to Christ in Romans 1:1) side by side, and should be flagged in lesson-planning as an opportunity to reinforce, not blur, that distinction.

Chapter 35 — The Rechabites’ Faithfulness

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
the Rechabites (obedience to an ancestral command) בֵּית הָרֵכָבִים / beth ha-Rekhavim proper clan name	A clan that kept a strict ancestral vow (no wine, no settled housing) for generations, held up as a positive contrast to Judah’s covenant-disobedience the Rechabites	A rare biblical example of multi-generational vow-keeping used approvingly — a genuine, positive point of contact with Hmong clan-based ancestral-vow-keeping customs	Transliterated proper noun “cov Lekhaj,” Low risk. Medium risk teaching note required: this is a positive natural-virtue analogy (steadfast obedience to a father’s command), but must not be taught as equivalent to covenant faith-obedience toward God, to avoid a subtle works/ancestor-honor-based misreading of the doctrine of faith.

Chapter 36 — The Burned Scroll

Terms	Variants	Theological Meaning	Hmong Rendering & Risk
scroll / book מְגִלָּה / סֵפֶר; megillah / sepher ”scroll”; “book, document”	The written record of Jeremiah’s oracles, burned by King Jehoiakim and then re-dictated in full (36:32) scroll, book	Illustrates that rejecting the written word of God does not nullify it — it is preserved and re-given, a durability-of-the-word theme relevant to True-Prophecy doctrine	NEW ENTRY — “phau ntawv” (scroll/book) — Low risk, general term; Baruch the scribe transliterated “Npalu.” No collision.

Chapters 37-39 — Reviewed (The Fall of Jerusalem)

Chapters 37, 38, and 39 are each individually reviewed. They narrate successive stages of the siege and fall of Jerusalem, Jeremiah’s imprisonment and rescue from a cistern, and Zedekiah’s capture. All three chapters reuse previously established judgment, siege, exile, and covenant-unfaithfulness vocabulary (chs. 1-34); no new load-bearing theological terms are introduced. Ch. 38’s account of Jeremiah’s persecution by his own government for faithful prophecy is a strong narrative anchor for the Cost-of-Faithful-Ministry doctrine and should be cross-referenced there.

Chapters 40-45 — Reviewed (Gedaliah, Assassination, Flight to Egypt)

Chapters 40 through 45 are each individually reviewed.

• Ch. 40-41: Governor Gedaliah’s brief administration and assassination — reuses exile/remnant vocabulary; no new term.
• Ch. 42-43: The remaining “remnant” (reuses Romans TM remnant, cov seem) seeks Jeremiah’s counsel, then disobeys it by fleeing to Egypt against the explicit word of the LORD — an important Individual Responsibility doctrine illustration: this remnant is not automatically righteous merely by having survived judgment, and it bears its own new guilt for further disobedience. [Teaching note: cross-reference with Romans TM remnant entry to avoid implying that "remnant" status is itself salvific, distinct from Rom 11's remnant doctrine which concerns God's preserved elect within Israel — the two "remnant" concepts must be taught as related but not identical.]
• Ch. 44: Continued idolatry in Egypt among the fleeing remnant — reuses dab mlom (idol) and kev ua nkauj rau luag dab (spiritual harlotry) vocabulary; no new term.
• Ch. 45: Brief personal oracle to Baruch — reuses established vocabulary; no new term.

Chapters 46-51 — Reviewed (Oracles Against the Nations)

Chapters 46 through 51 are each individually reviewed, covering successive oracles against Egypt (46), Philistia (47), Moab (48), Ammon (49:1-6), Edom (49:7-22), Damascus (49:23-27), Kedar and Hazor (49:28-33), Elam (49:34-39), and finally the extended two-chapter oracle against Babylon (50-51). All are proper-noun-heavy (transliterated Low-risk nation names) and reuse the established Romans TM vocabulary for wrath_of_god, nations_gentiles, hwjchim (always qualified “Vajtswv hwjchim”), and judgment/idol vocabulary already fixed above. The theological through-line — God’s sovereignty extends over every nation, not Israel/Judah alone, and even Israel’s conqueror Babylon will itself be judged and fall — directly reinforces the God’s Sovereign Plans for His People doctrine on a cosmic scale and should be cross-referenced there. No new dedicated glossary term beyond the nation-name transliterations is required.

Chapter 52 — Reviewed (Historical Appendix: The Fall of Jerusalem)

Parallels 2 Kings 24:18-25:30. Recounts the fall of Jerusalem, the Temple’s destruction, and the exile in historical-narrative form, reusing all previously established judgment and exile vocabulary; no new theological term. The chapter’s closing note — the exiled King Jehoiachin shown favor and released from prison in Babylon (52:31-34) — functions as a small, deliberate sign of hope planted at the very end of the book, and should be cross-referenced under the Hope of Restoration after Exile doctrine as a narrative down-payment on the promises of chs. 29-33.

---

§3. Cross-Book Consistency Notes

1. Every Romans-TM term reused above must appear character-for-character identical to its assets/translation_memory.json entry (Vajtswv, tus Tswv, Vaj Ntsuj Plig, kev npau taws ntawm Vajtswv, dab mlom, kev cawm dim, kev xaiv, cov seem, txiaj ntsim, kev txhiv, lub siab tawv, Vajtswv txoj kev ncaj ncees, etc.).
2. All Jeremiah-specific NEW ENTRY terms identified above (kev cog lus / Kev Cog Lus Tshiab; tus Cev Vajtswv Lus / tus Cev Vajtswv Lus Cuav; lub siab; kev txiav lub siab; kev ua nkauj rau luag dab; Vajtswv tej Homphiaj; tus Ceg Ncaj Ncees; Tus Tswv Yog Peb Txoj Kev Ncaj Ncees; paub Vajtswv; zam txim; kev quaj ntsuag; tus Kws Puab Av thiab cov Av Nplaum; kev coj rov qab los; txhua tus yuav ris nws tus kheej lub txim) are candidates for formal TM-revision review and should be consolidated into a Jeremiah-specific translation-memory extension file in a subsequent Phase.
3. Three [TRANSLATOR REVIEW NEEDED] flags were raised in this analysis (31:32’s Baal/ba’al wordplay; 27:6’s “my servant Nebuchadnezzar”; 23:33’s massa “burden/oracle” pun) and must not be silently resolved by any downstream generation process.