There has been a debate over the topic of whether the Son is eternally generated of the Father. I was referred to this article about Proverbs 8 and whether it was about Eternal Generation. I wish to give my observation of the arguments for it:

In the brief section in which he gives consideration to these questions, Muller concludes that the Reformed exegesis of Proverbs 8:23 proves that this passage “does indeed refer to the second person of the Trinity ‘under the name of Wisdom’ and that the text does in fact indicate that the divine wisdom is ‘begotten from everlasting.'” He then proceeds to explain the reasoning process of the Reformed when he writes:

“Solomon clearly intended to refer to the wisdom of God–although the text does not specify the phrase, the meaning ought to be obvious. This wisdom, moreover, was with God ‘in the beginning of his way, before his works of old’ (Prov. 8:22), which is affirmed in much the same way of Christ as divine Word in John 1:1. What is said of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, moreover, cannot be said of anyone other than the second person of the Trinity–and Christ is called the wisdom of God ‘in Scripture, not only in the expression of ὁ Λόγος, but ῥητῶς [specifically], 1 Cor. 1:30,’ and is so called ‘absolutely and simply’ in Matthew 11:19. The whole chapter in Proverbs, moreover, clearly speaks of wisdom as a ‘person.’ As for the Hebrew word olam, the Reformed argument is precisely the same as presented with reference to Micah 5:2: the word can and should be rendered as ‘eternal’ or ‘from everlasting’–particularly so in Proverbs 8:23, where ‘everlasting, from the beginning’ is explained by the phrase in the preceding verse ‘the Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old’ and by the entire remaining passage (vv. 24-29), where clearly this wisdom is said to exist before the creation itself.”1
https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/proverbs-823-the-eternal-gener.php

Firstly, since it is undoubtedly about Lady Wisdom, the question arises as to whether we have the “generation” of a Daughter than a Son. So, it seems that he will have to say that Lady Wisdom is a metaphorical stand-in for the Son. That also makes the notion of “beget” metaphorical as well. So, the question becomes what the metaphor stands for (see below). Who is the Son contrasted against as Lady Folly (Prov. 9:13)?

Secondly, this ignores in the time of Christ, an entire Wisdom tradition had arisen. NT scholars debate the relevance that it has on the NT writers. There is also no exegetical warrant to move from these passages to John 1 and elsewhere. As cited before:

Some think that Proverbs provides the background for NT Christology. There are various reasons for that and the most common idea is that in the back of various NT authors’ minds are the idea that is related to Philo’s logos. For example, John calls Jesus the “Logos” but what does that title suppose to convey to the reader?

I can’t leave out a nonexistent allusion. There is no allusion to Prov 8 in Jn 1. There are many problems with that alleged comparison: Jn 1 is a historical narrative, Prov 8 is a poetic allegory. Lady Wisdom in Prov 8 is a fictional character who parallels Lady Folly in Prov 9. As Bruce Waltke explains in his commentary, Lady Wisdom is a metaphor for Solomon’s proverbial wisdom. Lady Wisdom is an observer, not a creator–unlike the Logos in Jn 1. Lady Wisdom is God’s first creature, whereas the Logos is the Creator. Lady Wisdom is on the creaturely side of the categorical divide whereas the Logos is on the divine side of the categorical divide. Jn 1 doesn’t use wisdom terminology. It calls the filial Creator logos rather than Sophia.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/11/and-word-was-god.html

http://spirited-tech.com/2018/09/29/is-eternal-generation-biblical-2/

Thirdly, there is some exegetical discussion qānānî. There is a debate on how the term is rendered and it can go several ways, such as possession, creation, or begetting. I have an interpretation like Hays and Watlke:

Above all, this meaning best suits the parallel verbs in 8:22-26, “I was formed” (v. 23) and “I was brought forth” (vv. 24-25). As Procreator the LORD also acquired Wisdom, but this is a derivative thought. However, a literal, polytheistic interpretation involving the LORD with a sexual partner in begetting Wisdom is unthinkable in this book. The metaphor “brought me forth” signifies that Solomon’s inspired wisdom comes from God’s essential being; it is a revelation that has an organic connection with God’s very nature and being, unlike the rest of creation that came into existence outside of him and independent from his being.1475

Waltke, Bruce K.. The Book Of Proverbs: Chapters 1-15. (New International Commentary on the Old Testament) (Kindle Locations 7783-7787). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.

In this next part Wisdom focuses on her place in primordial time; here the motivation for receiving Wisdom precedes the invitation. The first two verses provide a summary: Yahweh possessed Wisdom before the creation of the world (v.23). With the verb qānâ (GK 7865) we must choose between homonyms and translate either “possess” or “create.” The older versions have “possess”; otherwise it might sound as though God lacked Wisdom and so created it before the world began. Their translators wanted to avoid saying that Wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the meaning of Wisdom and chose “create” as the verb. Athanasius read “constituted me as the head of creation.” The verb qānâ occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the idea of acquire; but the LXX and Syriac have the idea of “create.” Although the idea is that Wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (qānānî, “brought me forth,” v.22; nissaktî, “I was appointed,” v.23; and ḥôlāltî, “I was given birth,” v.24) argue for the idea of “create/establish” (see R. N. Whybray, “Proverbs 8:22–31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,” VT 15 [1965]: 504–14; W. A. Irwin, “Where Shall Wisdom Be Found,” JBL 80 [1961]: 133–42). The point of the metaphor of Wisdom’s being begotten is that this inspired Wisdom comes from God’s essential being unlike the rest of creation, which came into existence outside of him. And because this Wisdom existed before creation, it is not accessible to humanity and cannot be controlled by humans but must be revealed (Waltke, 1:409).

Allen P. Ross; Jerry E. Shepherd; George M. Schwab. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Kindle Locations 3796-3807). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

The other most probable interpretation is that Wisdom is possessed by God, but the Son isn’t an attribute of God. So, even if I am wrong, the next closest interpretation is not helpful for a proponent of eternal generation. 

Another question is how “life” can be given from God to believers. Does that mean believers possess things like aseity? Firstly, I think this is an important question but it also ignores the exegetical arguments for the idea this life is given to believers:

The form of Jesus’ next pronouncement echoes that of verse 21: “For just as the Father has life in himself, so too he gave to the Son to have life in himself” (italics added). What does it mean to “have life,” and what does it mean to have it “in himself”? Up to now, those who “have eternal life” are those who believe in Jesus (3:15, 16, 36; 5:24), and it is natural to assume that they have it because Jesus had it first (see 1:4, “In him was life”). “In himself” adds little to this, and should not be overinterpreted. It does not mean, for example, that the Father “made his Son to be the source of life” (GNB), even though that is true, nor does “life” here necessarily refer to “a creative life-giving power exercised toward men.” This would make verse 26 simply a doublet of verse 21. The formal parallelism suggests that the two pronouncements are indeed closely related, yet they are not quite synonymous. To have “life in oneself” is not something only the Father and the Son share, but something believers can claim as well. Those who “eat the flesh of the Son of man” can be said either to “have life in themselves” (6:53), or simply to “have eternal life” (v. 54). The two expressions mean the same thing: eternal life is theirs as an assured present possession, and that is all Jesus is saying here about himself and the Father. While his life is dependent on the Father’s (vv. 19–20), it is nevertheless his own (see v. 21), implying that no one can take it from him (see 10:17–18). Ironically, the reminder comes just as the Jewish authorities were “trying all the more to kill him” (v. 18), underlining the futility of their efforts.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John (p. 318). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.

I have also commented about the verse in my article:

The common assumption is to think that life here refers to the Divinity of the Son or his eternal existence. That has no exegetical basis and simply reading Nicene Orthodoxy back into the text. In the passage, you have Christ giving that same life to believers in verse 5:21-22 and 6:57. So, the verse would result in pantheism if interpreted that way. Furthermore, the “life” spoken about is eschatological life. These statements are made in reference to the future resurrection.

The emphasis that the Father has granted the Son to have life in himself, and has given him authority to exercise judgement functions as a further response to the charge of v. 18 that Jesus was making himself equal to God. Because of his relation to the Father, like the Father, Jesus himself is the possessor and giver of life.

Lincoln, A. T. (2005). The Gospel according to Saint John (p. 204). London: Continuum.

Some try to reframe the argument in terms that it seems in two areas. They will mention that the Father’s life is divine life. This seems to imply that it goes back prior to the events of the incarnation. The issue is that the non-eternal generation interpretation needs to explain the meaning that the Father has life in himself. I think a plausible understanding is that God can only give what he has. God is the “living God” and possesses immortality (John 6:57, 1 Tim. 6:16). While I believe this is true in the creator/creature distinction, the point is since God has this in and of himself(having not received it) he, therefore, can give it (John 1). The Son does what he sees the Father does. This isn’t the task of a creature. Only God gives life and can take it, but Christ shares in this divine prerogative. This shows why we have to honor the Son just as we honor the Father.

The other argument in regards to this is that this life is given to the Son. But the Son isn’t resurrected yet and therefore this life can’t refer to the Son qua his humanity, but rather his divinity. The problem with this understanding is that contextually this is what life means throughout the entire Johannine literature. That is even in this context you have a discussion about the Son being granted the authority to judge in the eschaton. So, it is even harder to believe this is an exception. The argument also fails to account for the fact that this “Eternal life” is actually possessed by believers now (verse 23-24 of the same chapter explains this).

http://spirited-tech.com/2018/09/29/is-eternal-generation-biblical-2/