1 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.

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,

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.

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,

1 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.

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;

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

1 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.

1 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.

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;

1 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,

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.

1 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,