Talk:Covenant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Covenant article.

Article policies
To-do list for Covenant:
  • Move text of a theological nature to Covenant theology, as Covenant (theological term) is now a redirect to that article. It has a section on the definition of covenant here.
  • Find out what categories this article falls under.
  • Correct the definition - there are fundamental flaws.
  • Legal context section - review and tidy up stray words at the end. (121.44.236.22 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
Priority 6  

Ihcoyc, the religious info regarding Covenant wasn't "inexplicably deleted" — it was moved to its own page at covenant (theological term). Your restore has removed all references to the new disambiguation page, all pages linked from that disambiguation page that were not mentioned in the original article, and all edits to the new theological-term page since the split. The split happened because there were simply too many senses being referred to at once; if you came to the link from another article expecting to find the theological info, the proper thing to do was correct the inbound links — and not to revert. I'm reverting your revert. - Korpios 17:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Update — actually, it was Stevertigo's fault in removing the link to the disambiguation page. Sorry to blame you for that part, but the page still needs to be reverted. - Korpios 17:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I gathered that something of the sort had happened, but I couldn't figure out what it was from the history or the comments, so it struck me as odd. No problem; I just didn't want there not to be a page on the theology part. Smerdis of Tlön 18:26, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Understandable; again, sorry to blame you, but I at first couldn't understand why you did what you did, until I went back through the revisions one-by-one and realized that you were seeing a page without the {alternateuses} link. - Korpios 18:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I would like to put up a request to clean up the covenant page and the covenant disambiguation page by merging them and shortening the descriptions that accompany newly merged page. Since i am new, I hesitate to add the /attention/ flag at the top of the directly linking covenant page
adendum to previous post Ramius V. Schweitzer 21:48, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Categories?

What categories should this article be under? --Randolph 00:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

it should stay as is

[edit] Covenant definition need correcting

The definition of covenant listed here is fundamentally flawed. Covenant relationships are most definitely two-way and are essentially contracts. Both parties must agree to the terms of the covenant and be willing participants. What makes covenantial relationships different from others is that they are unbreakable. Many covenants were "to the death" in that the parties entering into covenant agreed that they would rather die than forsake the terms of the covenant. Today, we see a growth in what's called Covenant Marriages (very much a two-way relationship) where the parties agree to make their vows intentially hard to break. Both parties are most definitely bound by the terms of the covenant.

Biblically, the word covenant comes from the Hebrew word "Berith". The greek word is "diatheke". It was the translation of "diatheke" as "testament" instead of covenant (I believe it was in the King James Verson of the Bible) that has caused many to believe that this is much like a "Last Will and Testament" or a one-way agreement. Most translations today, correctly translate this word as "covenant" giving it an intirely different (and appropriate) conotation from testament.

I can go on since I find this subject fascinating, but for now, let's update the definition to reflect correctly that covenant is two-way and is unique among other contracts in that it was binding.--Taratime 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed "a covenant can also be made could also refer to the unconditional promises made to humanity by God" to "covenants have been made by God with humanity". Heptazane 20:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The current definition of covenant is just flat-out wrong. This one-way idea is just bogus. It's been a year and a half, and still no one defends it. I'm changing it within the next few days.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious definition

I see that almost 10 months later a dubious definition of religious covenant is still in place. Every text I've read does not limit the meaning the way this article does. 24.6.65.83 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The definition of religious covenant is also wrong. I'm changing it within the next few days, too.    GUÐSÞEGN   – UTEX – 12:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)