The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Regarding my post, I just noticed that Antipater has already made the comments I noted about the translation. Sorry to repeat it, Antipater, I should have reviewed the postings more carefully.

No harm done Jack...you still had a good post

_________________
Everyone is equal at the foot of the cross...just some are more equal than others.
Forum Code of Conduct
Bible.org Doctrinal Statement
rickwadholmjr.wordpress.com
iheartbarth.wordpress.com
bluechippastor.org
Twitter: @RickWadholmJr

Yes, Jack and Antipater, I am aware of the thinking that Prov 22:6 could be taken as allowing the child to follow his own natural tendency, It is not a new idea. It goes back much earlier, and as recently as Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985 (and Doug Steward as you both mentioned). Their "bent" is influenced by their natural "fallen" human nature and can only lead to tragedy if indulged, as these commentators imply. However, if taken as sarcasm, like this, it seems out of harmony with the usual direction of Proverbs in general when it comes to teaching, especially if the teaching of "the way" is understood not as the "child's way," but as "God's way" or the Law, as others claim.

The other idea you mentioned, of the meaning of "bent" being their natural ways or style of learning or even their career interests is also a possibility, even though some commentator's doubt that is the intent because they see it as too modern a psychological concept, especially in a day when family apprenticeship was the most common education for a trade. But, nonetheless, I ask, Who made the psychology of the human mind and who better to know it at any time period but the Holy Spirit who gave Solomon this message?

Now the real kicker in both of these tracks you proposed is that it comes from the etymology of a word with which the “road” or “way” is associated and not the word itself. In Hebrew the roots are the same and without vowel pointing would be the same except, in this verse, the suffix shows this is the noun form of the word and so the focus is on the PATH either as a literal ROAD or as a figurative WAY of life.

However, I contend that this Proverb is aprt of the Dark Sayings or Riddles genera noted in Prov 1:6 and therefore allowance of such connections may be possible, but not primary or surface. By the more common philosophy of interpretation (hermeneutic) words cannot have two meanings at the same time, and nouns can't borrow from verbs, and vice versa. Since these interpretations rely on the BENT or INCLINATION of the child as "to bend" or "to incline," this would replace rather than add to the meaning "road.” So in that thinking it can't be "his way" and "his bent" at the same time.

As I said before, but not clearly due to limited space per post. Unlike most translators, I believe this is a situation where one verse can have many simultaneous meanings which all can be correct. Such is the nature of some Hebrew "riddles" as I understand them. The selection of unusual words to express this truth, when more common and clear vocabulary existed, is one indication that it a riddle and therefore all (or at least many reasonable) possible meanings (consistant with the rest of the teaching of Scripture) are being conveyed at once.

So, perhaps all the commentaries (except those who dogmatically hold to the one verse, one meaning school of thought) are right. Even these "one liners" could be right in their one choice. Just don't tell them some other guy's interpretation can be correct at the same time.

If you re-read the expanded paraphrase from my fisrt post, you will see shades of the word BENT in the context of its original literal meaning, which is "to TREAD the BOW"; meaning to bend the bow to string it in preparation for warfare or use. I see the preparation of the child as getting ready to do spiritual battle. This understanding, and many other subtleties that I did not have space to explain are inherent in the verse as I understand this genera of proverb being capable of saying. Each part of the paraphrase draws from the larger context except my word "compass" which is a modern concession beyond lodestone or navigational chart, but short of GPS. Of course, the Word and the Holy Spirit are better guides than any of these.

Considering Proverbs in general, is it not the case that the first ten chapters could be used as a parent's child raising manual. The word 'son' is used at least 22 times in these chapters, but only 19 times (in directives and remarks about sons) in the rest of the Proverbs.

If I had it to do over I would require my children to memorize the first ten chapters of Proverbs and use them systematically and repeatedly in conversations with my children. It seems to me, doing this would educate both parents and children in the the growing up process. Done in love and mutual respect surely would provide the basis for lasting, strong, parent-child relations. I think parents have no greater responsibility (other than to the Lord) than raising their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (Eph. 6:4)

_________________
Jude v. 24-25

Yes, Ps. 22:6 is true but as I said earlier it is a principle. There are some people who do recognize that children grow up and when they become adults they have free will. My youngest daughter is 20 and now my wife and I tend more to be advisers; which we have transitioned to over the past few years. We model Christian behavior we give them our opinion or thoughts on questions they have but in the end they are adults and we recognize that and allow them to live their lives.

Proverbs in ancient times served as colloquial means of getting a point across. They were considered wisdom that must be considered seriously and are much like the saying we have today.
When the proverb of "a penney saved is a penney earned" is stated today, the speaker advocates the wisdom of personal thrift. It is not saying that "for every penney you save you will earn another." The proverb is not a situational promise, but rather it is a truth principle for personal thrift.

Therefore, in the case of Proverbs 22:6, there is a truth principle involved and not a promise. The speaker/author is not saying, "every child trained up in the Lord will absolutely not depart from that way." He is, however, advocating the principle of raising children correctly. He advocates giving them the pattern (if-you-will) early for living their adult lives.

Just as some who learn the thrift wisdom will choose not to apply it: So also will some who learn the godly wisdom choose not to apply it. However, some who depart from thrifty-ness will see the error of their way and return. They would've never have seen the error had they not learned the wise principle of truth. So also will those who learn the godly wisdom & pattern have the lenses to see their error. The responsibility of teaching the proper principles belongs to the parents. The responsibility of how the children choose to apply those principles in adulthood belongs to the children themselves.

Is the proverb true? YES!

Is the proverb an absolute truth promise? NO!

My 2 cents for the conversation.

_________________
Blessings,
Randy
Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The Net Bible Online