IRVTA
1. பின்னும் நான் சொல்லுகிறது என்னவென்றால், வாரிசானவன் எல்லாவற்றிற்கும் எஜமானாக இருந்தும், அவன் சிறுபிள்ளையாக இருக்கும் காலம்வரைக்கும், அவனுக்கும் அடிமையானவனுக்கும் வித்தியாசம் இல்லை.

TOV
1. பின்னும் நான் சொல்லுகிறதென்னவெனில், சுதந்தரவாளியானவன் எல்லாவற்றிற்கும் எஜமானாயிருந்தும், அவன் சிறுபிள்ளையாயிருக்குங்காலமளவும், அவனுக்கும் அடிமையானவனுக்கும் வித்தியாசமில்லை.

ERVTA
1. இதை உங்களுக்குச் சொல்ல நான் விரும்புகிறேன். ஒருவன் தன் சொத்துக்களுக் கெல்லாம் உரிமையுடையவனாய் இருந்தும் அவன் சிறுபிள்ளையாய் இருந்தால் அவனுக்கும் அடிமைக்கும் எந்த வேறுபாடும் இல்லை.

ECTA
1. நான் சொல்வது இதுவே; தந்தையின் சொத்து அனைத்துக்கும் உரிமையுடையோர் சிறுவராய் இருக்கும்வரை அவர்களுக்கும் அடிமைகளுக்கும் வேறுபாடு எதுவும் இல்லை;

RCTA
1. இன்னும் ஓர் எடுத்துக்காட்டுச் சொல்லுகிறேன்: தந்தையின் சொத்தனைத்திற்கும் என் மகன் தலைவனாய் இருந்தாலும், சிறுவனாய் இருக்கும் வரையில், அவனுக்கும் அடிமைக்கும் வேறுபாடு எதுவும் இல்லை;



KJV
1. Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

AMP
1. NOW WHAT I mean is that as long as the inheritor (heir) is a child and under age, he does not differ from a slave, although he is the master of all the estate;

KJVP
1. Now G1161 CONJ I say G3004 V-PAI-1S , [ That G3588 T-NSM ] the G3588 T-NSM heir G2818 N-NSM , as long as G3745 K-ASM he G5550 N-ASM is G2076 V-PXI-3S a child G3516 A-NSM , differeth G1308 V-PAI-3S nothing G3762 A-ASN from a servant G1401 N-GSM , though he be G5607 V-PXP-NSM lord G2962 N-NSM of all G3956 A-GPM ;

YLT
1. And I say, so long time as the heir is a babe, he differeth nothing from a servant -- being lord of all,

ASV
1. But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all;

WEB
1. But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a bondservant, though he is lord of all;

NASB
1. I mean that as long as the heir is not of age, he is no different from a slave, although he is the owner of everything,

ESV
1. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything,

RV
1. But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant, though he is lord of all;

RSV
1. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate;

NKJV
1. Now I say [that] the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,

MKJV
1. But I say, Over so long a time the heir is an infant, he does not differ from a slave, though being lord of all;

AKJV
1. Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differs nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

NRSV
1. My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property;

NIV
1. What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.

NIRV
1. Here is what I have been saying. As long as your own children are young, they are no different from slaves in your house. They are no different, even though they own all of the property.

NLT
1. Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had.

MSG
1. Let me show you the implications of this. As long as the heir is a minor, he has no advantage over the slave. Though legally he owns the entire inheritance,

GNB
1. But now to continue---the son who will receive his father's property is treated just like a slave while he is young, even though he really owns everything.

NET
1. Now I mean that the heir, as long as he is a minor, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything.

ERVEN
1. This is what I am saying: When young children inherit all that their father owned, they are still no different from his slaves. It doesn't matter that they own everything.