The wording of some of these translations is understandably confusing. Of the interpretations you identify, I think the second and third options are most defensible since either meaning fits the context, so I'll focus on them.

The second option speaks to the character of the man. Such that, being reduced to a loaf of bread or being brought to a loaf of bread, you are effectively a meal ticket (as in, you are merely sustaining the life of the prostitute with your payment, which will be used to buy food - like bread).

The third option speaks to the ensuing financial ruin. If you continue visiting prostitutes, you will find yourself destitute (as in, you are left with only a loaf of bread).

In this case, I feel the NET Bible does a good job of expounding on this idea in its notes. By identifying the whole verse as an example of synthetic parallelism, the statement reads "this thing A is bad, and even worse is this other thing B." The first line you are asking about is A, and the following line is B.

A more dynamic interpretation could then read something like this, "sleeping with a prostitute will leave you morally and/or financially bankrupt, but sleeping with another man's wife will ruin your life." The implication being that the man whose wife you are sleeping with may literally kill you. Even if he doesn't, you are egregiously breaking the social contract of your community. At best, you and the adulteress are now pariahs; at worst, you may be stoned to death.

Since the first option is used in some translations, I think it is important to point out why it is a weak translation. As the NIV has it, the verse could be erroneously understood to indicate that you should choose to sleep with prostitutes instead of the wives of other men. The prostitute only costs a loaf of bread, which is much less costly than losing your life. Therefore, I think it is a weak translation since it is more likely that verse is painting both actions in a bad light.

The wording of some of these translations is understandably confusing. Of the interpretations you identify, I think the second and third options are most defensible since either meaning fits the context, so I'll focus on them.

The second option speaks to the character of the man. Such that, being reduced to a loaf of bread or being brought to a loaf of bread, you are effectively a meal ticket (as in, you are merely sustaining the life of the prostitute with your payment, which will be used to buy food - like bread).

The third option speaks to the ensuing financial ruin. If you continue visiting prostitutes, you will find yourself destitute (as in, you are left with only a loaf of bread).

In this case, I feel the NET Bible does a good job of expounding on this idea in its notes. By identifying the whole verse as an example of synthetic parallelism, the statement reads "this thing A is bad, and even worse is this other thing B." The first line you are asking about is A, and the following line is B.

A more dynamic interpretation could then read something like this, "sleeping with a prostitute will leave you morally and/or financially bankrupt, but sleeping with another man's wife will ruin your life." The implication being that the man whose wife you are sleeping with may literally kill you. Even if he doesn't, you are egregiously breaking the social contract of your community. At best, you and the adulteress are now pariahs; at worst, you may be stoned to death.

Since the first option is used in some translations, I think it is important to point out why it is a weak translation. As the NIV has it, the verse could be erroneously understood to indicate that you should choose to sleep with prostitutes instead of the wives of other men. The prostitute only costs a loaf of bread, which is much less costly than losing your life. Therefore, I think it is a weak translation since it is more likely for verse to be painting both actions in a bad light.