Ireneaus offers the following interpretation of Proverbs 8, > I have also largely demonstrated, that the Word, namely the Son, was > always with the Father; and that Wisdom also, which is the Spirit, was > present with Him, anterior to all creation. He declares by Solomon : > "God by Wisdom founded the earth, and by understanding hath He > established the heaven. By His knowledge the depths burst forth, and > the clouds dropped down the dew." And again: "The Lord created me the > beginning of His ways in His work: He set me up from everlasting, in > the beginning, before He made the earth, before He established the > depths, and before the fountains of waters gushed forth; before the > mountains were made strong, and before all the hills, He brought me > forth." And again: "When He prepared the heaven, I was with Him, and > when He established the fountains of the deep; when He made the > foundations of the earth strong, I was with Him preparing [them]. I > was He in whom He rejoiced, and throughout all time I was daily glad > before His face, when He rejoiced at the completion of the world, and > was delighted in the sons of men." (Against Heresies, 4:20:3 - ANF > 1:488) If Ireneaus was a student of Polycarp (a student of John the Apostle), why doesn't he (Ireneaus) interpret Prov. 8 as a reference to Christ, especially if we are to believe that Prov. 8 influenced Jn. 1:1? Wasn't Ireneaus from the Johannine school of thought? Why doesn't his interpretation align with what is supposed to be the "Johannine tradition," if Prov. 8 was really the influence for Jn. 1:1?

Proverbs 30:2-4 says: > Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man. I have not learned wisdom, nor have I knowledge of the Holy One. Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son's name? Surely you know! There is a related question here: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/38937/who-is-he-and-what-is-the-name-of-his-son-proverbs-304 and, though the question seeks to ascertain the name and existence of the son from OT sources alone, many of the answers indicate that the trinitarian view incorporating the NT renders Jesus as either the one who fulfills the first 5 questions or as the son. A few answers and comments seem to hold that the questions are entirely rhetorical and the point is to not answer them. How do Biblical Unitarians answer the six questions posed in these verses? 1) Who has ascended to heaven and come down? 2) Who has gathered the wind in his fists? 3) Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? 4) Who has established all the ends of the earth? 5) What is his name? 6) What is his son's name?

In general, Wisdom can be (and is, and was) identified as Jesus. However, there is this verse: > [**Proverbs 8:22 (NLT)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=proverbs%208:22&version=NLT) > 22 "The Lord formed me from the beginning, > before he created anything else." Hold on a moment...I thought God the Son wasn't created, having coexisted with God the Father since before time? How is the identity of Wisdom established as being that of the Son and how is Proverbs 8:22 handled? If it makes a difference, I grew up Wesleyan, so I'd prefer Protestant doctrines although Catholic or Orthodox doctrines would be interesting too.

Proverbs 8:22-23 (LXX) says > The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works. > He established me before time in the beginning, before he made the > earth How can that be Jesus if Jesus was not made but eternally begotten. Secondly Colossians 1:19 (NKJV): > For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on > earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or > principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for > Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. Proverbs 8:26-29 would seem to denote that it was the Father who created, but Proverbs 8:30 seems to say that wisdom participated along with the father in creation (I wanted confirmation on this.)

I would like to hear some perspectives on the desire for riches based on some passages. Should one strive to be neither rich nor poor based on Proverbs 30:8? Proverbs 30:8 NIV: >Keep falsehood and lies far from me; give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread. Is it immoral to want to be rich based on some passages in 1 Timothy 6? 1 Timothy 6:6-10 NIV: >Of course, godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into the world, so we cannot carry anything out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with these. Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. By craving it, some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows. How would one define "rich" in the context of these verses? In other words, according to the Bible, how do you know when you are rich or want to become rich? Would simply wanting to have more than food and clothing be pursuing riches?

> Proverbs 16:4 > > The Lord has made everything for [c]its own purpose, > Even the wicked for the day of evil. > > 16:4 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex כֹּ֤ל פָּעַ֣ל יְ֭הוָה > לַֽמַּעֲנֵ֑הוּ וְגַם־רָ֝שָׁ֗ע לְיֹ֣ום רָעָֽה׃ > Proverbs 16:33 > >The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision > is from the Lord. > > 16:33 Hebrew OT: Westminster Leningrad Codex בַּ֭חֵיק יוּטַ֣ל > אֶת־הַגֹּורָ֑ל וּ֝מֵיְהוָ֗ה כָּל־מִשְׁפָּטֹֽו׃ How would Arminianism supporters explain Proverbs 16:4 & Proverbs 16:33 (since said verses strongly suggest support for Calvinism's predestination)? (Side Question: @ray-butterworth Thanks for your posting. For Proverbs 16:4, would the following be a reasonable analogy? - -A person named John Doe is walking all alone in the forest with a bleeding physical wound -He sees a really dirty rag near a tree -He decides to take the dirty rag, and wrap it around his wound to slow down the bleeding -Now, he knows the dirty rag can cause physical infections, but for the time being, the dirty rag will slow the bleeding -Therefore, he decides that if he does get any infections from the dirty rag then he will deal with it later because the immediate concern is to Reduce the bleeding. To conclude, the dirty rag represents Proverbs 16:4's wicked. It's sort of like selecting the lesser to 2 evils in order to put an end to the greater of the 2 evils by reducing the physical wound's bleeding which is an immediate concern at that time. If any physical infections show up which is a consequence of using the dirty rag then it can be addressed at a later point in time. )

WE read in Proverbs 30: 7-9 (NRSVCE): >Two things I ask of you; do not deny them to me before I die: Remove far from me falsehood and lying; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that I need, or I shall be full, and deny you, and say, “Who is the Lord?” or I shall be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God. It is possible that Jesus adopted, with suitable adaptation, the fourth petition in The Lord's Prayer from Proverbs 30. The deeper meaning of `Give us this day our daily [*epiousios*] bread 'has been the subject of long debates, including one on the rarity of the usage *epiousios* elsewhere. By limiting the need for physical food for the day' as if on a daily quota ' basis, Jesus wants us to steer clear of "..or I shall be full, and deny you.. " situation. Compare this with Yahweh's instruction to the Israelite to eat only the manna they had gathered for each day (Exodus 16). My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, is the Fourth Petition in the Lord's Prayer an adaptation of Proverbs 30: 7-9 ?

>**Proverbs 8:22 (KJV)** The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. Even if you take the stance that Proverbs 8:22 means God *possessed* me at the beginning (i.e. as opposed to God *created* me at the beginning), what does one do with, for example, Sirach 1:4, which says: >**Sirach 1:4 (KJV)** Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting. I'd like to believe that Wisdom is Jesus; it makes a lot of sense to me. But it's very hard for me to believe Jesus was a created being, and just as hard to believe there are two Wisdoms. Question -- According to Christians who believe a) Christ was **not created** and b) is the Wisdom spoken of in the Wisdom books of the Old Testament, why is this Wisdom described in the Old Testament as having been **created** by God?

Proverbs 21:1 says >The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes. This seems to imply that kings (and perhaps everyone else too) don't have freewill, but that God determines their decisions. How do non-Calvinists view this verse?

Can anyone tell me why the KJV translates the Hebrew words *yipara am* as “people perish” in Pr. 29:18? (The Hebrew word *am* means people and *yipara* means unrestrained.) Other translations render *yipara am* as “the people run wild,” and “the people cast off restraint.” YLT says, “Without a Vision is a people made naked.” Brenton says, “There shall be no interpreter to a sinful nation: but he that observes the law is blessed.” The *Lexham English Septuagint* says, “A seer will never come to a lawless people, but those who keep the law are most blessed.” The *JPS Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text* (1917) translates *yipara am* as “the people cast off restraint.” What am I missing here?

> **Proverbs 21:14 (NLT)** > "A secret gift calms anger; a bribe under the table pacifies fury." Reading this scripture it would seem to indicate that the Bible supports (at the very least some form of) bribery. Is that really the case?

Proverbs 8:22–36 states the following: > 22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,before his deeds of old; > 23 I was formed long ages ago, at the very beginning, when the world came to be. > 24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth, when there were no springs overflowing with water; > 25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth, > 26 before he made the world or its fields or any of the dust of the earth. > 27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep, > 28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep, > 29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. > 30 Then I was constantly at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, > 31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind. > 32 “Now then, my children, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways. > 33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not disregard it. > 34 Blessed are those who listen to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway. > 35 For those who find me find life and receive favor from the LORD. > 36 But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death.” My question is, who is the Wisdom described here? It seems that God created this being and it was present with Him before creation time began? I'm looking for a Catholic perspective.

> Proverbs 25:2 King James Version (KJV) 2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. I came across this today on this site when I found the question "What does the Bible say about science?" What is being said in this verse in context to the surrounding verses? Does it mean we are not supposed to learn new things or want to learn?

> [**Proverbs 26:4-5 (NLT)**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2026:4-5&version=NLT) > > 4 Don’t answer the foolish arguments of fools, > or you will become as foolish as they are. > > 5 Be sure to answer the foolish arguments of fools, > or they will become wise in their own estimation. > At first read, these seem to be contradicting one another. Verse 4 tells us **not** to answer fools' arguments and verse 5 tells us **do** answer fools' arguments. With such a seeming contradiction, there is certainly some sort of official material out there that resolves this issue. According to the Wesleyan denomination (or as close as possible), how is this apparent contradiction resolved?

>Have not I written to thee **excellent things** in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth... -- Proverbs 22:20 (KJV) In the KJV of this verse, the Hebrew word 'Shalosh' is translated as "excellent things.' However, most other translations, as well as Strong's Concordance, defines that Hebrew word as "a threefold measure, a triple." This seems to give the verse the meaning: "Have not I written to thee a threefold measure in counsels and knowledge. So, what is this threefold measure, or triple?

Jesus says in the gospel of Matthew [paraphrasing] "if you look at a woman and lust for her, you have already sinned in your heart." In proverbs, they say, [again, paraphrasing] "let her [the companion of your youth] breasts satisfy you." Is that not lust? Aren't these two messages contradicting each other?

>And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? (Proverbs 5:20, KJV) It is well-known that Solomon had many wives and concubines. It seems that the advice he is giving here contradicts to his own way of living. How is this seeming contradiction usually explained in Catholicism, Orthodoxy and main-stream Protestantism?

In James 1:5 it says that God gives Wisdom, whereas in Proverbs 4:7 it teaches to seek wisdom. How would one reconcile these two verses.

I've noticed that Proverbs and Ecclesiastes have shockingly differing views of wisdom and knowledge: > “Her [wisdom and understanding personified] ways are pleasant ways and all her paths are peace.” (Proverbs 3:17) > > “Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.” (Ecclesiastes 1:18) Clearly peace is not the same thing as grief, nor is pain the same as pleasant. Considering that there is no argument over that, what then make sense of these two verses. Can they both be true at the same time? Is wisdom and understanding a grievously pleasant and peacefully painful thing? Are we supposed to do the math and determine that wisdom is just average then in every regard? How can these two verses be understood so that they are both true, but can be in harmony with each other and not be a ridiculously obvious contradiction?

Is there anything in Scripture or Hebrew historical documents that says for whom Proverbs was written? Did Solomon expect his sons to read them or were they for the people of Israel? Please provide verses or documents to support your claims.