Assamese: তেন্তে আমি কি ক’ম? বিধানেই পাপ নে? এনে নহওক। কিন্তু পাপনো কি, সেই মই বিষয়ে আগতে নাজানিছিলোঁ; কেৱল বিধানৰ যোগেদিহে জানিবলৈ পালো৷ "কিয়নো তুমি লোভ নকৰিবা," বিধানে ইয়াক নোকোৱা হ’লে, লোভ নো কি সেই বিষয়ে নাজানিলোহেঁতেন৷
AYT: Jika demikian, apakah yang akan kita katakan? Apakah Hukum Taurat itu dosa? Sekali-kali tidak! Sebaliknya, aku tidak akan mengenal dosa kecuali melalui Hukum Taurat, karena aku tidak akan mengerti arti dari mengingini milik orang lain jika Hukum Taurat tidak mengatakan, "Jangan mengingini."
Bengali: আমরা তবে কি বলব? আইন কি নিজেই পাপ? তা কোনদিনই না; বরং পাপকে আমি জানতাম না যদি কি না আইন না থাকত; কারণ “লোভ কর না,” এই কথা যদি আইনে না বলত, তবে লোভ কি তা জানতে পারতাম না;
Gujarati: ત્યારે આપણે શું કહીએ? શું નિયમ પાપરૂપ છે? ના, એવું ન થાઓ; પરંતુ નિયમ ન હોત તો મેં પાપ જાણ્યું ન હોત; કેમ કે નિયમશાસ્ત્રે જો કહ્યું ન હોત કે લોભ ન રાખ, તો હું લોભ વિષે સમજ્યો ન હોત.
Hindi: तो हम क्या कहें? क्या व्यवस्था पाप है*? कदापि नहीं! वरन् बिना व्यवस्था के मैं पाप को नहीं पहचानता व्यवस्था यदि न कहती, “लालच मत कर” तो मैं लालच को न जानता। (रोम. 3:20)
Kannada: ಹಾಗಾದರೆ ಏನು ಹೇಳೋಣ? ಧರ್ಮಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವು ಪಾಪಸ್ವರೂಪವೋ? ಎಂದಿಗೂ ಅಲ್ಲ. ಧರ್ಮಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಿಲ್ಲದಿದ್ದರೆ ಪಾಪವೆಂದರೆ ಏನೆಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ದೃಷ್ಟಾಂತವಾಗಿ <<ದುರಾಶೆ ಪಾಪವೆಂದು>> ಎಂದು ಧರ್ಮಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವು ಹೇಳದಿದ್ದರೆ ದುರಾಶೆಯಂದರೆ ಏನೆಂದು ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿಯುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
Malayalam: ആകയാൽ നാം എന്തു പറയേണ്ടു? ന്യായപ്രമാണം പാപം എന്നോ? ഒരുനാളും അല്ല. എങ്കിലും ന്യായപ്രമാണത്താൽ അല്ലാതെ ഞാൻ പാപത്തെ അറിഞ്ഞില്ല; “നീ മോഹിക്കരുതു” എന്നു ന്യായപ്രമാണം പറയാതിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ ഞാൻ മോഹത്തെ അറികയില്ലായിരുന്നു.
Marathi: मग काय म्हणावे? नियमशास्त्र पाप आहे काय? कधीच नाही. पण मला नियमशास्त्राशिवाय पाप समजले नसते. कारण ‘लोभ धरू नको’ असे नियमशास्त्राने सांगितल्याशिवाय मला लोभ कळला नसता.
Odiya: ତେବେ, ଆମ୍ଭେମାନେ କ'ଣ କହିବା ? ମୋଶାଙ୍କ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା କ'ଣ ପାପ ? ତାହା କେବେ ହେଁ ନ ହେଉ । ବରଂ ପାପ କ'ଣ, ତାହା ମୋଶାଙ୍କ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ବିନା ମୁଁ ଜାଣି ନ ଥାଆନ୍ତି; କାରଣ ଲୋଭ କର ନାହିଁ, ମୋଶାଙ୍କ ବ୍ୟବସ୍ଥା ଏହା କହି ନ ଥିଲେ, ଲୋଭ କଅଣ, ତାହା ମୁଁ ଜାଣି ନ ଥାଆନ୍ତି ।
Punjabi: ਹੁਣ, ਅਸੀਂ ਕੀ ਆਖੀਏ ? ਕੀ ਬਿਵਸਥਾ ਪਾਪ ਹੈ ? ਕਦੇ ਨਹੀਂ ! ਸਗੋਂ ਬਿਵਸਥਾ ਤੋਂ ਬਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਮੈਂ ਪਾਪ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਪਛਾਣਦਾ ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਜੇ ਬਿਵਸਥਾ ਨਾ ਕਹਿੰਦੀ ਕਿ ਲਾਲਚ ਨਾ ਕਰ ਤਾਂ ਮੈਂ ਲਾਲਚ ਨੂੰ ਨਾ ਜਾਣਦਾ ।
Tamil: எனவே, என்னசொல்லுவோம்? நியாயப்பிரமாணம் பாவமோ? இல்லையே, பாவம் என்னவென்று நியாயப்பிரமாணத்தினால்தான் நான் தெரிந்துகொண்டேனேதவிர மற்றப்படி இல்லை; இச்சிக்காமல் இருப்பாயாக என்று நியாயப்பிரமாணம் சொல்லாதிருந்தால், இச்சை பாவம் என்று நான் தெரியாமல் இருப்பேனே.
Telugu: కాబట్టి ఏం చెప్పాలి? ధర్మశాస్త్రం పాపమా? కానే కాదు. ధర్మశాస్త్రం వలన కాకపోతే నాకు పాపమంటే ఏమిటో తెలిసేది కాదు. ఇతరులకు చెందిన దాన్ని ఆశించవద్దని ధర్మశాస్త్రం చెప్పకపోతే దురాశ అంటే ఏమిటో నాకు తెలిసేది కాదు.
Urdu: पस हम क्या करें क्या शरी'अत गुनाह है? हरगिज़ नहीं बल्कि बग़ैर शरी'अत के मैं गुनाह को न पहचानता मसलन अगर शरी'अत ये न कहती कि तू लालच न कर तो में लालच को न जानता।
NETBible: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! Certainly, I would not have known sin except through the law. For indeed I would not have known what it means to desire something belonging to someone else if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”
NASB: What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "YOU SHALL NOT COVET."
HCSB: What should we say then? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin if it were not for the law. For example, I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, You shall not covet.
LEB: What then shall we say? [Is] the law sin? May it never be! But I would not have known sin except through the law, for I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
NIV: What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
ESV: What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
NRSV: What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet."
REB: What follows? Is the law identical with sin? Of course not! Yet had it not been for the law I should never have become acquainted with sin. For example, I should never have known what it was to covet, if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”
NKJV: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet."
KJV: What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
NLT: Well then, am I suggesting that the law of God is evil? Of course not! The law is not sinful, but it was the law that showed me my sin. I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, "Do not covet."
GNB: Shall we say, then, that the Law itself is sinful? Of course not! But it was the Law that made me know what sin is. If the Law had not said, “Do not desire what belongs to someone else,” I would not have known such a desire.
ERV: You might think I am saying that sin and the law are the same. That is not true. But the law was the only way I could learn what sin means. I would never have known it is wrong to want something that is not mine. But the law said, “You must not want what belongs to someone else.”
EVD: You might think that I am saying that sin and the law are the same thing. That is not true. But the law was the only way I could learn what sin means. I would never have known what it means to want something wrong. But the law said, “You must not want {things that belong to other people}.”
BBE: What then is to be said? is the law sin? in no way. But I would not have had knowledge of sin but for the law: for I would not have been conscious of desire if the law had not said, You may not have a desire for what is another’s.
MSG: But I can hear you say, "If the law code was as bad as all that, it's no better than sin itself." That's certainly not true. The law code had a perfectly legitimate function. Without its clear guidelines for right and wrong, moral behavior would be mostly guesswork. Apart from the succinct, surgical command, "You shall not covet," I could have dressed covetousness up to look like a virtue and ruined my life with it.
Phillips NT: It now begins to look as if sin and the Law were the same thingcan this be a fact? Of course it cannot. But it must be admitted that I should never have had sin brought home to me but for the Law. For example, I should never have felt guilty of the sin of coveting if I had not heard the Law saying "Thou shall not covet".
CEV: Does this mean that the Law is sinful? Certainly not! But if it had not been for the Law, I would not have known what sin is really like. For example, I would not have known what it means to want something that belongs to someone else, unless the Law had told me not to do that.
CEVUK: Does this mean that the Law is sinful? Certainly not! But if it had not been for the Law, I would not have known what sin is really like. For example, I would not have known what it means to want something that belongs to someone else, unless the Law had told me not to do that.
GWV: What should we say, then? Are Moses’ laws sinful? That’s unthinkable! In fact, I wouldn’t have recognized sin if those laws hadn’t shown it to me. For example, I wouldn’t have known that some desires are sinful if Moses’ Teachings hadn’t said, "Never have wrong desires."
NET [draft] ITL: What <5101> shall we say <2046> then? Is the law <3551> sin <266>? Absolutely <1096> not <3361>! Certainly, I would not <3756> have known <1097> sin <266> except <1487> through <1223> the law <3551>. For <1063> indeed I would not <3756> have known what it means to desire <1939> something belonging to someone else if <1487> the law <3551> had <3004> not <3361> said <3004>, “Do <1937> not <3756> covet <1937>.”