You're reading too much into the different syntax. In modern French, referring to wife as "sa femme" does not in any way indicate something lesser about the legal status of French women. As a general rule, what you say is relevant. The Mesopotamian's had different legal categories than we do: wife, wife of lower social class (concubine), and slave girl versus wife, common law, girlfriend. However that's a different issue than the the one above, and I think translating their wife to ours is reasonably accurate.

While your skepticism of Bible Translators and Hebrew scholars maybe worthwhile, I don't think you should trust random slashdotters over the existing scholarship. As I noted elsewhere, in many languages, the normal way you say wife is "his woman" (for example, in French, "sa femme"). I believe it's the same in Hebrew.

I'm not an expert on Hebrew, but many languages do this, and the concept of wife is denoted with possessive (often same with husband too). So a translation to the word wife would be accurate.

Car insurance would still exist. Robot cars won't stop vandalism.

A 3 pound object falling 15 could easily kill someone without a helmet. Even with a helmet your chances aren't that stellar.

Old people usually need younger people to take care of them.

Do you really want the government deciding when your prison term is up / "justice has been served" based on whether they think you have been rehabilitated or not?

That's a good point; I wish I had mod points for you. That said, "an eye for an eye" is just. It is, perhaps, the most fair retribution possible, but it is not the sort of thing we see, or want to see in our justice system. I think there needs to be some mix of justice and mercy.

No, jail is useless if it does not rehabilitate its convicts and keep them from re-offending. Punishment often helps to that end but it is not the same thing.

Stalin wasn't at the district conference. Note the line: "And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on—six, seven, eight minutes!"

Companies don't pay taxes. They pass them off to the customers.

You may be a troll, but I see this argument in real life so I will respond to it.

That is true, but does not help at all. In this case, Apple customers are getting cheaper products at the expense of the rest of the tax payers who pay for the public services that Apple takes advantage of. You see what happened? Tax evasion still costs money. It's just that it's the people who don't buy Apple products that end up paying the cost of Apple's tax evasion.

TL;DR: Tax evasion and government subsidies are functionally the same. I don't want the government subsidizing Apple.

In some countries vending machines are people, and they walk out onto the road when you're stuck in traffic and try to sell you snacks.

This isn't the first time I've heard his name before. This is also the guy who declared Oracle's Java API's to be not copyrightable and the rangeCheck code they were crying over was something so simple he'd written 100 times before.

This isn't theft, it's (alleged) copyright infringement.