Λέγω δέ, ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρονόμος νήπιός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν διαφέρει δούλου κύριος πάντων ὤν,

Lego de, eph' oson khronon o kleronomos nepios estin, ouden diapherei doulou kurios panton on,

dico autem quanto tempore heres parvulus est nihil differt servo cum sit dominus omnium

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

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

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

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

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,

Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth in nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.

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

I say that as long as the heir is a child, he is not distinct from the Servants, though he is Master over all of them;

Now I say, As long as the heir is a child, he differs nothing from a bondman, though he be lord of all;

Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;

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

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,

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.

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.

Now what I am saying is this: As long as an heir is a child, he is no better off than a slave, even though he owns everything.

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.

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,

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

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.

Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he is lord of all;

Now I say that so long as an heir is a child, he in no respect differs from a slave, although he is the owner of everything,

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;

I will say it like this. Think about a son who will one day receive what belongs to his father. While he is still a child, he is like a slave in the family. That is true, even though all his father's things really belong to him.

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

Let me say this another way. A young child who will get all the riches of his family is not different from a servant who is owned by the family. And yet the young child owns everything.

Then I say that the heir (as long as he is a child) differs nothing from a servant - though he be Lord of all -

Listen. I am going to explain how this all works: When a minor inherits an estate from his parents, although he is the owner of everything, he is the same as a slave.

But remember this, that if a father dies and leaves great wealth for his little son, that child is not much better off than a slave until he grows up, even though he actually owns everything his father had.

What I am saying is that as long as an heir is a minor, he is no different from a slave, even though he is the owner of it all.

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,

Now I say That the heir, as long as he is a child differs in nothing from a slave, though he be lord of all,

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.

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;

I want to tell you this: While those who will inherit their fathers’ property are still children, they are no different from slaves. It does not matter that the children own everything.

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, he is subject to tutors and administrators until whatever date the father has set for emancipation. That is the way it is with us: When we were minors, we were just like slaves ordered around by simple instructions (the tutors and administrators of this world), with no say in the conduct of our own lives.

What I am saying is this: As long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave. Although he is owner of everything,

What I am saying · is that as long as the heir is a minor, he differs not at all from a slave, even though in fact he owns the entire estate.

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;

And I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ from a servant, though he be lord of all,

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.

But I say, as long time as the heir is a little child, he diverseth nothing from a servant, when he is lord of all things [when he is lord of all];

Let me put it like this. As long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave—even if, in fact, he is master of everything!

Children who are under age are no better off than slaves, even though everything their parents own will someday be theirs.

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;

But you must realise 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. He has to obey a guardian or trustee until the time which his father has chosen for him to receive his inheritance. So is it with us: while we were “children” we lived under the authority of basic moral principles. But when the proper time came God sent his son, born of a human mother and born under the jurisdiction of the Law, that he might redeem those who were under the authority of the Law and lead us into becoming, by adoption, true sons of God. It is because you really are his sons that God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts to cry “Father, dear Father”. You, my brother, are not a servant any longer; you are a son. And, if you are a son, then you are certainly an heir of God through Christ.

My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than those who are enslaved, though they are the owners of all the property,

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;

I’m saying that as long as the heirs are minors, they are no different from slaves, though they really are the owners of everything.

Now what I mean [when I talk about children and their guardians] is this: as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave even though he is the [future owner and] master of all [the estate];

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,

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,

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,

·I want to tell you this [or This is what I mean; L I am saying]: While those who will inherit their fathers’ property are still children, they are no different from slaves. It does not matter that the children ·own everything [or are masters/lords over the whole estate].

Now I am saying, so long as the heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, even though he is the owner of everything.

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;

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 will own all the property.

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

What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a minor he is no different from a slave, even though he is the legal owner of the estate;

Here is what I mean. When a man dies, his son is to receive his property. As long as the son is not grown up, he cannot have it. He has no more right than a servant, even though he really owns all the property.

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;

Now I say this: for however much time as the yoresh (heir) has not attained his majority (the state or time of being of full legal age, or his religious majority, his Bar Mitzvah), he differs nothing from an eved, though being Ba’al Bayit of all the nachalah (inheritance).

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.

Now I say that as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ from a servant though he is lord of all.

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.

I want to tell you this: While the one who will inherit his father’s property is still a child, he is no different from a slave. It does not matter that the child owns everything.

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,

What I am saying is that as long as an heir is under age, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate.

Now I say— for as much time as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave. Being the [future] owner of all,