“ Our law doesn’t condemn a man unless it first hears from him and learns what he is doing, does it?”

“不先听本人的口供，不知道他所做的事，难道我们的律法还定他的罪吗？”

“不先听本人的口供，查明他所做的事，难道我们的律法还定他的罪吗？”

“不先听本人的口供，查明他所做的事，难道我们的律法还定他的罪吗？”

“难道不听被告申辩，不查明事实真相，我们的律法就定祂的罪吗？”

“如果不先听取他本人的口供，查明他所作的事，我们的律法怎能把他定罪呢？”

“如果不先听本人的口供，并且了解他做了什么，我们的律法就定不了他的罪，难道不是吗？”

「不先聽本人的口供，不知道他所做的事，難道我們的律法還定他的罪嗎？」

「不先聽本人的口供，查明他所做的事，難道我們的律法還定他的罪嗎？」

「不先聽本人的口供，查明他所做的事，難道我們的律法還定他的罪嗎？」

「難道不聽被告申辯，不查明事實真相，我們的律法就定祂的罪嗎？」

“如果不先聽取他本人的口供，查明他所作的事，我們的律法怎能把他定罪呢？”

『若不先聽聽他本人的口供，而知道他所作的是甚麼事，難道我們的律法還定人的罪麼？』

「如果不先聽本人的口供，並且了解他做了什麼，我們的律法就定不了他的罪，難道不是嗎？」

未聽其言、不識其所為、而鞫之、豈我律乎、

未聽訟、不識其所為、我律豈罪之、

未究詰人、不識其所為、我律法豈罪之乎、

『未先聽訟、一究其所行、吾法豈能遽加以罪乎？』

“ Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”

“ Does our law find a man guilty without hearing him first? Doesn’t it want to find out what he is doing?”

“ Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?”

“ Is it legal to convict a man before he is given a hearing?” he asked.

“ Our law doesn’t judge a man before it hears from him and knows what he’s doing, does it?”

“ Our Law does not judge the person unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?”

“ Does our law judge a man before it hears him and knows what he is doing?”

Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?

“ Our law doesn’t judge a man before it hears from him and knows what he’s doing, does it?”

Doth our law judge[ any] man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?

“ Does our law judge a man, unless it first hears from him personally and knows what he does?”

The one who gives an answer before he listens– that is his folly and his shame.

Then Paul said to him,“ God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Do you sit there judging me according to the law, and in violation of the law you order me to be struck?”

They must not discriminate in judgment, but hear the lowly and the great alike. Nor should they be intimidated by human beings, for judgment belongs to God. If the matter being adjudicated is too difficult for them, they should bring it before me for a hearing.

If a matter is too difficult for you to judge– bloodshed, legal claim, or assault– matters of controversy in your villages– you must leave there and go up to the place the LORD your God chooses.You will go to the Levitical priests and the judge in office in those days and seek a solution; they will render a verdict.You must then do as they have determined at that place the LORD chooses. Be careful to do just as you are taught.You must do what you are instructed, and the verdict they pronounce to you, without fail. Do not deviate right or left from what they tell you.

A single witness may not testify against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits. A matter may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.If a false witness testifies against another person and accuses him of a crime,then both parties to the controversy must stand before the LORD, that is, before the priests and judges who will be in office in those days.The judges will thoroughly investigate the matter, and if the witness should prove to be false and to have given false testimony against the accused,you must do to him what he had intended to do to the accused. In this way you will purge evil from among you.

At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.