Ro.Rom RomanosRoomlastele, capítulopeatükk Carta de Pablo a los RomanosPauluse kiri roomlastele, capítulopeatükk 7

Tõlked Võrdle

¿Qué concluimos entonces? ¿Que la ley es pecado? ¡Por supuesto que no! Pues yo no habría conocido lo que era el pecado si no fuera porque la ley lo define. Yo no me habría dado cuenta de que el deseo de tener las cosas de otras personas estaba mal si no fuera porque la ley dice: “No desees para ti lo que le pertenece a otro”.

Roomlastele 7:7 eri tõlgetes

Hispaania

RV1909 ¿Qué pues diremos? ¿La ley es pecado? En ninguna manera. Empero yo no conocí el pecado sino por la ley: porque tampoco conociera la concupiscencia, si la ley no dijera: No codiciarás.

NBV ¿Es que acaso estoy dando a entender que la ley de Dios es pecado? ¡Claro que no! La ley no es pecado, pero fue la ley la que me enseñó que en mí había pecado. Jamás me habría dado cuenta de lo que es codiciar si la ley no me hubiera dicho: «No codiciarás».

BES ¿Qué diremos entonces? ¿La Ley es pecado? De ninguna manera. Pero yo no habría conocido el pecado si no fuera por la Ley. Porque no habría sabido lo que es codiciar si la Ley no dijera: No codiciarás.

PdDpt Entonces ¿qué diremos? ¿La Ley es pecado? ¡Claro que no! No conocí el pecado sino por medio de la Ley, porque ciertamente no conocería la codicia si la Ley no dijera: No codiciarás.

PDT ¿Eso significa que la ley es pecado? ¡Claro que no! Pero la ley era la única manera de saber qué es el pecado. Por ejemplo, no sabía lo que significa desear lo que no me pertenece, pero la ley decía: «No desees lo que no te pertenece», y solo entonces fue cuando lo entendí.

Eesti

OECV Mis me siis ütleme? Kas Seadus on patt? Kaugeltki mitte! Siiski, ma ei oleks tundnud pattu muidu kui Seaduse kaudu. Ma ei oleks teadnud, mida tähendab himustamine, kui Seadus poleks öelnud: „Ära himusta!“

Inglise

KJV (66 books) 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.

AFINT (Exp US) What then shall we conclude? Is the Law itself sinful? Absolutely not! May it never be! But I would not have come to experiential knowledge of sin except through the Law’s revelation. For I would not have known the inner sin of coveting or lustful desire if the Law had not commanded, “You shall not covet.”

AFINT (Lit US) 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 coveting if the Law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

ASV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:

BSB What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed, I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”

DRA What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I do not know sin, but by the law; for I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou shalt not covet.

EMTV What shall we say then? Is the law sin? By no means! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known lust unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

FBV So what do we conclude? That the law is sin? Of course not! I wouldn't have known what sin was unless the law defined it. I wouldn't have realized that wanting to have other people's things for myself was wrong without the law that says, “Don't desire for yourself what belongs to someone else.”

GNV What shall we say then? Is the Lawe sinne? God forbid. Nay, I knewe not sinne, but by the Lawe: for I had not knowen lust, except the Lawe had sayd, Thou shalt not lust.

LSV What, then, will we say? The Law [is] sin? Let it not be! But I did not know sin except through law, for also the covetousness I had not known if the Law had not said:

NASB What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? Far from it! 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.” NASB 2020

NIV (US) What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”

NMV What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? May it not be. No, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, youi shall not covet.

OJB What then shall we say? That the Gezetz is considered as chet (sin)? Chas v'shalom! Nevertheless, I would not have experienced chet (sin) except through the Gezetz; for I would not have known chamdanut (covetousness, greediness) if the Torah had not said, LO TACHMOD (Thou shalt not covet).

TCENT What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Yet I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness if the law had not said, “Yoʋ shall not covet.”

T4T Someone might object, saying, “◄The laws that God gave Moses must be evil if our sinful desires are increased because of our knowing those laws. [MTY]/Are not the laws that God gave Moses evil if they stir up our sinful desires?►” [MTY, RHQ] I would reply that they certainly are not evil, even though our sinful desires are increased. What I would reply is that I, for example, realized that what I was doing was sinful only because of what is written {Moses wrote} in those laws. For example, I realized that coveting is sinful only because he wrote in those laws [PRS], “You must not covet.”

WEB (US) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! However, I wouldn’t have known sin except through the law. For I wouldn’t have known coveting unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”