Assamese: কিন্তু মই কওঁ, উত্তৰাধিকাৰী শিশুহৈ থকালৈকে, সৰ্ব্বস্বৰ গৰাকী হ’লেও তাতে তেওঁ আৰু দাসৰ মাজত একো প্ৰভেদ নাথাকে;
AYT: Yang kumaksud, selama ahli waris itu masih anak-anak, ia tidak ada bedanya dengan budak walaupun ia adalah pemilik segala sesuatu.
Bengali: কিন্তু আমি বলি, উত্তরাধিকারী যত দিন শিশু থাকে, তত দিন সব কিছুর অধিকারী হলেও দাস ও তার মধ্য কোনো পার্থক্য নেই,
Gujarati: હવે હું કહું છું કે, વારસ જ્યાં સુધી બાળક છે, ત્યાં સુધી સર્વનો માલિક છે; તે છતાં પણ તેનામાં અને દાસમાં કંઈ પણ તફાવત નથી.
Hindi: मैं यह कहता हूँ, कि वारिस जब तक बालक है, यद्यपि सब वस्तुओं का स्वामी है, तो भी उसमें और दास में कुछ भेद नहीं।
Kannada: ಆದರೆ ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವುದೇನಂದರೆ, ವಾರಸುದಾರನು, ತಾನು ಆಸ್ತಿಗೆಲ್ಲಾ ಒಡೆಯನಾಗಿದ್ದರೂ ಬಾಲಕನಾಗಿರುವ ತನಕ ದಾಸನಂತೆಯೇ ಇರುವನು.
Malayalam: അവകാശി മുഴുവൻ സ്വത്തിനും ഉടമയെങ്കിലും ശിശുവായിരിക്കുന്നേടത്തോളം അടിമയെക്കാൾ ഒട്ടും വിശേഷതയുള്ളവനല്ല,
Marathi: आता मी म्हणतो की, वारीस लहान बाळ आहे, तोपर्यत तो सर्वांचा धनी असूनही त्याच्यामध्ये व दासामध्ये काही भेद नसतो.
Odiya: କିନ୍ତୁ ମୁଁ କହୁଅଛି, ଯେତେ ଦିନ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ଉତ୍ତରାଧିକାରୀ ନାବାଳକ ଥାଏ, ସେତେ ଦିନ ପର୍ଯ୍ୟନ୍ତ ସେ ସମସ୍ତ ବିଷୟର କର୍ତ୍ତା ହେଲେ ହେଁ କୌଣସି ପ୍ରକାରେ ଦାସଠାରୁ ଭିନ୍ନ ନୁହେଁ,
Punjabi: ਹੁਣ ਮੈਂ ਆਖਦਾ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਵਾਰਸ ਜਿੰਨਾਂ ਚਿਰ ਬਾਲਕ ਹੈ ਉਸ ਅਤੇ ਦਾਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੁੱਝ ਭਿੰਨ ਭੇਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਭਾਵੇਂ ਉਹ ਸਭ ਦਾ ਮਾਲਕ ਹੈ ।
Tamil: பின்னும் நான் சொல்லுகிறது என்னவென்றால், வாரிசானவன் எல்லாவற்றிற்கும் எஜமானாக இருந்தும், அவன் சிறுபிள்ளையாக இருக்கும் காலம்வரைக்கும், அவனுக்கும் அடிமையானவனுக்கும் வித்தியாசம் இல்லை.
Telugu: నేను చెప్పేదేమిటంటే, వారసుడు తండ్రి సంపద అంతటికీ యజమాని అయినప్పటికీ పిల్లవాడుగా ఉన్నంతకాలం అతనికీ దాసునికీ ఏ తేడా లేదు.
Urdu: लेकिन मैं ये कहता हूँ कि वारिस जब तक बच्चा है,अगरचे वो सब का मालिक है,उसमे और गुलाम में कुछ फ़र्क नहीं,
NETBible: 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.
NASB: Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything,
HCSB: Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way from a slave, though he is the owner of everything.
LEB: Now I say, for as long a time [as] the heir is a child, [he is] no different from a slave, [although he] is master of everything,
NIV: 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.
ESV: 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,
NRSV: 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;
REB: THIS is what I mean: so long as the heir is a minor, he is no better off than a slave, even though the whole estate is his;
NKJV: 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,
KJV: Now I say, [That] the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;
NLT: Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves great wealth 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.
GNB: 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.
ERV: 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.
EVD: I want to tell you this: While the heir is still a child, he is no different from a slave. It doesn’t matter that the heir owns everything. Why?
BBE: But I say that as long as the son is a child, he is in no way different from a servant, though he is lord of all;
MSG: 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,
Phillips NT: WHAT I am saying is that so long as an heir is a child, though he is destined to be master of everything, he is, in practice, no different from a servant.
CEV: Children who are under age are no better off than slaves, even though everything their parents own will someday be theirs.
CEVUK: Children who are under age are no better off than slaves, even though everything their parents own will some day be theirs.
GWV: Let me explain further. As long as an heir is a child, he is no better off than a slave, even though he owns everything.
NET [draft] ITL: Now I mean <3004> that the heir <2818>, as long as <3745> <5550> he is <1510> a minor <3516>, is <1308> no <3762> different <1308> from a slave <1401>, though he is <1510> the owner <2962> of everything <3956>.