Talk:Covenant (biblical)

message: I removed this category because the page doesn't really explain in any way how the concept of "covenant" is unique to Calvinism or particularly important to Calvinism, as opposed to other families of Christianity.  If someone can edit the page to explain that, then I have no problem with us returning it to that category.  KHM03 14:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Category:Calvinism

message: Covenant (Israel) is redunandant and should be deleted, and its link pointed to here. --Bruce IV
:Agreed. I did so. --Flex 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Merger with Covenant (Israel) 

message: The New Covenant, predicted by the prophet Jeremiah in the eponymous book, chapter 31, and connected with Jesus at the Last Supper where he says that the cup is "the New Covenant in [his] blood" and further in the Epistle to the Hebrews (chapters 8-10). 
This is a pure christian view and this idea is completely foreigh to judaism. Here is a webpage criticizing the christian view of Jeremiah 31. Now we have two possibilities :
1/ either we indicate that this is a christian view only
2/ or we delete this interpretation because this article is part of both portals (Judaism and Christianity).
I slightly changed the title ; if anybody has a better idea, please discuss it here. --Squallgreg 19:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fleshed out the article a bit, especially the definition and the New Covenant (Christian view) section. Eventually, I'm afraid, we'll have to fork this article into a Jewish and Christian version since most Christians agree on certain things about the covenants, but the emphases, I'm sure, are different than in Judaism. For now, though, a "New Covenant (Judaism)" section would be good for balance, but I'm not qualified to write it, at least for a while yet. Also, sometime we might want to reorganize the article so the primary covenants of Biblical revelation are kept separate from the other instances of covenant such as the national covenants, individual covenant, and covenant with Lot. What would be interesting would be to see a discussion of the general principles motivating such uses of the word "covenant" and what makes them different from the primary use (to refer to covenants made unilaterally between God and man). Evan Donovan 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on the New Covenant 

message: I'm using IE 7 and I see a huge gap (10+ lines worth) after the "Noahic Covenant" headline before the first line of text.  I don't see this gap with firefox.  Any way to make the entry more IE friendly?  I suspect it has to do with placing the photo on the right which wants to go below the "part of a series of articles on Christianity" box.
Mstupak 10:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the images. How's that work? --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format issue 

message: On what basis are these types of statements considered "covenants?" The word does not appear in the passages listed and so this entire section appears to be Original Research. 24.6.65.83 23:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal covenants 

message: In the Biblical story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac (I know the Koran says Ishmael), G-d refers to Isaac as Abraham's only son. Ishmael's descendants could not be part of the covenant if G-d did not consider him to be Abraham's son. In the same way, Hagar was not Abraham's wife, but merely his bondwoman/concubine. Sposer (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An additional point

message: The guide says that pronouns referring to deities are capitalized. Would not capitalize he with regard to Abraham, since he isn't a deity. But, God is a deity, so He is capitalized as it is a pronoun referring to Him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sposer (talk • contribs) 16:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As Emily Litella said, "Nevermind". My mistake. I disagree with the policy, but what the heck. Sposer (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of God as referred to by He/His, etc.

message: 1. I removed the section on Ishmael because he never received a covenant, but only a blessing, and circumcision with the rest of the males in Abraham's household.
2. The Christian content in the 'New Covenenat' was removed since claims to it are covered elsewhere, and do not enlighten the reader on the significance or content of the prophetic covenant, explicitly stated to be for Israel and Judah.
The entire article needs to be significantly expanded since all it is now is a collection of verse citations--Meieimatai? 11:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I question the removal of both the Lot Covenant since Deut 2:9 states "I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession".  This does not imply to me a blessing, but a stated commitment by God.  Further the removal of the covenant with Ishmael seems to be without any cause, and the POV addition to New Covenant all seem like bad edits that need to be cleaned up.  Heptazane (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  removals 

message: Has anyone noticed that the article seems to have been edited in a way to give the impression that Ephraim are Arabs and they are the rightful inheritors of the land and the covenant is addressing them? Especially clear in the sections Covenant to Issac and Covenant to Israel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd233 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestinian Propaganda 

message: This section promises to be about the New Covenant in Christianity, but then includes Noahidism, which is not Christian at all.  Each section under a header should discuss the subject of the header.  Noahidism already has its own header.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs) 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Covenant in Christianity 

message: Hello everyone! I would like to add a few new sections. One section would discuss the dissolution of the covenant law for the sake of Monarchial unity. The other section would include phraseological and semantical evidence supporting the theory that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants where truly grants, as understood by the surrounding cultures, as opposed to a treaty. Does anyone believe this would be a helpful endeavor?
ZarathustraSay20 (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits look mostly very good, ZarathustraSay20. "Weinfield believes that similar terminology and wording can connect the Abrahamic Davidic covenants with ancient near grants as opposed to being largely similar to the more popular Mosaic covenant, which is Suzerainty." -- looks rushed and needs revision: "Abrahamic Davidic" missing an and? Ancient Near East? "which is Suzerainty" is missing something, too. On dissolution, which is also good, the lead sentence (at least) needs to provide more context for the reader. What time period? Who says this? Perhaps this can be a separate section, which would be great, so needs to be rewritten slightly in relation to the rest of the article. Keep up the good work!  ProfGray (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissolution of the Covenant Form and covenant connections

message: Hello, I am a student at Miami University. After reading a journal by Weinfeld, I believe I have some interesting information to add to this page. I am interested in adding more information to the covenant with Abraham involving the grant covenant. Also, I would like to add more about Genesis 15 and the sacrificial aspect it has.AL2015 (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The Covenant With Abraham in Gen. XV

message: Hello, I am also a student at Miami University.  Also based on a journal by Weinfeld, I had a few things I think would be beneficial in pointing out in terms of covenants.  I would like to add info about the roles taken on by God and Abraham in terms of the structure of the obligatory covenant.  Also adding in what parts of the covenant follow the structure of obligatory covenants and what parts don't.  I think this would be beneficial for this page.  Any advice or comments are welcome.  Thank you. Dkcincy (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Abraham's Covenant Roles

message: Hi there! I'm a student at Miami University enrolled in a course on the Hebrew Bible. I found an interesting comparison and analysis in an article written by Moshe Weinfeld that suggests that the covenants between God and Abraham and God and David are modeled after grants, forms of treaties used in Near East antiquity. This idea would be useful under either the Abrahamic or Davidic covenant sections (or perhaps in a new section?) Sctimmons (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as grants 

message: Hi, I am also a student at Miami University  enrolled in a hebrew bible class. PG .193-194
Weinfield begins talking about David and how he is mentioned in the old testament. David is known in a few sources as the first born, and how many of gods 
decedents are alike, however being the first born is a much more significant role. There is a hebrew word mentioning that he was appointed which is his divine right and not one by luck. He was given land and how he shall refer to him as the "father". These pages mention and use words in a family setting to explain the relationship of David and the other states in an easier way. he explains how exactly David became to be known in the pentateuch however some parts are left with gaps making is difficult to understand. Adrugby (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  David and the covenant

message: I would also like to add to the information in this article concerning the differences between promissory and obligatory covenants, and how they are able to be related to the royal grant and political treaty legal documents in biblical times. Specifically, I plan to focus on how these are related to the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants. Slfirme (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Promissory and Obligatory Covenants

message: This section has several problems, User:IMcayat. First, it doesn't reference any secondary, reliable source, such as academic Biblical scholarship. Second, it seems to rely on the Bible itself as a source, which isn't suitable for Wikipedia and thus appears as original research. Third, it seems to lack a Neutral Point of View -- for instance with "There is a grace that will be bestowed upon his children even in the midst of their sins." -- and NPOV is necessary here. Finally, it's not clear why this deserves its own section and can't be integrated elsewhere -- which covenant is this section about? ProfGray (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconditional gift section -- problems 

message: "In the ancient middle east (in which the Bible was written), a covenant was a formal agreement"
This is not true. The first covenant in the Bible that could be considered an agreement was with Moses. All others were promises attached with signs. No agreement on the part of man was made. [Unsigned comment by .]
:The whole section on the meaning of covenant cited no reliable sources, so I just yanked the whole thing out. Feel free to replace it with something that does use reliable sources. Alephb (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreement 

message: Why does the first paragraph of this section seem biased towards Judaism and has no citations or sources? 46.135.2.178 (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement Theology 

message: your fatherless  2A0D:6FC7:55E:D489:578:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey its me goku