Manipulation of Bible translations on the topic of homosexuality and in general

On the manipulation of Bible translations in general

This article is currently the most comprehensive and in-depth professional publication and analysis on the topic of homosexuality and Bible translations ever written on this subject. Generously available for free. Extensive analyses from the perspective of the scientific disciplines of philology and hermeneutics are summarized in the article.
Most Christians today have a strong "conservative" sentiment and claim they must fight against homosexuals because the "divine revelation" of the Bible commands them to do so. This article has never been as relevant as it is today. Most Christians in Slovakia or the USA think that the role of Christians in politics is only cultural wars. Christianity in recent years has faced enormous moral decline and has been reduced to cultural wars and hatred towards LGBTI+.
                    As the author of the article, I have spent hundreds to thousands of hours translating the Bible. A religious fanatic cannot be a scientist, cannot be objective, even if they formally meet the requirements of the definition of an academic expert who is a connoisseur of ancient Greek and Hebrew (this includes, for example, Slovak Catholic priests who teach at the theological faculty).
All translations are very well sourced and substantiated, the article contains dozens of references.
                    There are many manipulations of Bible translations. Specifically, in this article, I focus on the topic of homosexuality, but there are several areas where the church has modified translations to adapt them to its dogmas.
                    One verse of the Hebrew Bible is extremely difficult to translate, it takes several hours. Every single word has many meanings. A literal translation is often completely incomprehensible in our language as it is an ancient language. Translating is very difficult: Martin Luther was the first to translate the Bible into an understandable language (even the Latin Bible/Vulgate was not understandable) and even Catholic translations are often just a lazy copy of Martin Luther's translation, known as a man who hated homosexuals.
                    It is a great shame for the Catholic Church (and other churches), which most often invokes the concepts of truth, orthodoxy, and infallibility, that its official translations contain errors and lies. The Catholic Church distorts the Bible to suit its dogmas. Christian churches adapt the Bible to their dogmas. Although the Bible itself states that it is strictly forbidden to manipulate the Bible ( Mt 5:17-19 , Lk 16:17 ), Christian churches do not take this very seriously.
                    In my long translation practice, I have noticed that various Christian, biblical, or interlinear dictionaries of ancient Greek and Hebrew are manipulated. They often intentionally conceal multiple meanings of a given word or add other meanings to it. They do so for purely religious, ideological reasons, contrary to a scientific approach, with the aim of manipulating the Bible. Therefore, it is very important to look at the meaning of a word in secular dictionaries of ancient Greek and Hebrew. The differences are sometimes astounding. It is always correct to translate based on a secular dictionary, because only in this way can objectivity, ideological impartiality, and a scientific approach to translations be maintained.
It is very important to warn many Christians and Christian theologians that theological dictionaries are manipulated. Many do not even know about it.
I even noticed an unfortunate phenomenon, that the influence of religious dictionaries is also passing into secular dictionaries. However, secular dictionaries are at least honest in stating that the word is translated in this way only in the Bible.
                    Some experts consider the Aramaic version of the New Testament , the Peshitta, to be the original. In the past, I dealt more with the Peshitta ( and the Targum ), but later I came to realize that it makes absolutely no sense. The best website is dukhrana.com/peshitta . Unfortunately, the quality of the translation dictionary is extremely poor; it draws from outdated 150-year-old dictionaries, and there are huge signs of manipulation in the meanings of words. It is certainly not right if all Aramaic words have practically identical meanings to those in Greek biblical dictionaries in 95% of cases. I have not been able to find quality and secular Aramaic-English dictionaries online. Perhaps there are quality dictionaries between modern Hebrew and Aramaic. Hebrew and Aramaic should be quite similar languages. Since many younger Jewish texts, such as the Talmud, were written in Aramaic, it is clear that there are very good dictionaries between Aramaic and modern Hebrew. The absence of a quality dictionary is a very sad thing, because a translational analysis of the Peshitta is not possible.
I publicly call on the academic scientific community to compile a quality dictionary and ask for it to be published online. A dictionary between Aramaic and English can be compiled with the help of experts from Israel, or on the basis of an Aramaic-Hebrew dictionary.
                    The manipulations of Bible translations are very extensive and absolutely shocking. It is very sad that so little is said about it. It requires a huge amount of education. It would help Christians a lot. John 8:32 You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
Reasons?
There are several reasons. Unfortunately, there are very few philosophers and researchers who are engaged in the criticism of mainstream Christianity. Religion is a very strong and manipulative egregore, which has a very strong protective energy field. Mainstream Christianity itself leads human consciousness to slavery – to not think, not reflect, and not be critical.
It would be very good if personalities and authorities from the academic community joined this educational campaign.

Translations of the Bible on the topic of homosexuality

This article also explains a great mystery from the point of view of historians, why until the 11th century there were no records of the Catholic Church having a negative attitude towards homosexuality, nor was any punishment for homosexuality recorded. Simply put, there was no negative mention of homosexuality in the Bible. The homophobic ideology in the church arose independently of the Bible.
Since bisexuality was a very important part of the culture of the entire planet in prehistoric times, from the point of view of experts, it is no surprise that it was no different in ancient Judea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history

Translation by doc. Prudký

Standard translation, Catholic or Protestant versions of translations:
The Book of Leviticus – Chapter 18
22 You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is an abomination.

Evangelical associate professor of theology ThDr. Martin Prudký, his translation:
Leviticus 18:22
And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
My minor linguistic adjustment of the literal translation by the associate professor into a language understandable to us:
You don't sleep with a man (together) with a woman.
*********************************************************************
Standard translation, Catholic or Protestant versions of translations:
The Book of Leviticus – Chapter 20
13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Evangelical associate professor of theology ThDr. Martin Prudký, his translation:
Leviticus 20:13
And [as for] any man who lies with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

My minor linguistic adjustment of the literal translation by the associate professor into a language understandable to us:
If any man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
(It could be translated more understandably, but the priority of this translation is to stick to the literal text as much as possible)
***********
Possible interpretation: It is clear from the revised translations that this is not a homosexual act, but a threesome where one woman is with two men.
***************************
Source of information, translations by doc. Prudký
https://www.etf.cuni.cz/~prudky/mptexty/tisk19_06.htm
(https://www.etf.cuni.cz/~prudky/mptexty/tisk19_06.htm">link backup)

The so-called interlinear translation of the Bible, where you can look up the meaning of each word in the dictionary, can be viewed here:
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/leviticus/1-1.htm
****************************
Overall conclusion: The important fact is that there is not a single verse or statement against homosexuality in the Old Testament, which is a huge disappointment for orthodox believers. Even the believers themselves do not really know their own Bible.

David and Jonathan

And one more gem to conclude
For conservative believers, the following passages of the Bible are absolutely terrifying and devastating. According to the following verses, the holy man of God, David, is certainly bisexual or gay.
The Second Book of Samuel – Chapter 1
26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been very dear to me. Your love was more wonderful to me than the love of women.

1 Samuel – Chapter 18
3 Jonathan made a covenant with David, for he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the cloak that he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his armor, his sword, his bow, and his belt.

The New Law on Homosexuality. The Problem of Translating the Greek Word arsenokoitēs (ἀρσενοκοίτης )

The etymology of arsenokoitēs ( link2 ) is from the words ἄρρην ( arrhen ) and κοίτη (koite). Arrhen means either male or human. The King James Version of the Bible is based on the translation of the word and arsenokoitēs translates to "abusers of themselves with mankind". A possible translation of arsenokoitēs is "a man who has sex", or "one who has sex with men".
                    In the new law, there is only one place where it can be said that it is a criticism of homosexuality, it is the Letter to the Romans, chapter 1.
There are two other places in the Bible that, according to church institutions, criticize homosexuality. This is an incorrect translation of the Greek word arsenokojtés. The etymology of this word consists of two words: arrhen and koite. Arrhen means man and koite is a bed, which is usually loosely translated as sexual intercourse. Source of information here:
The secular dictionary states that the term arsenokojté is mentioned exclusively in the Bible and not in other texts, and provides a religious interpretation of the translation https://lsj.gr/wiki/
Dictionaries from religious translators very boldly state the meaning as sodomite, homosexual, and pederast.
https://biblehub.com/greek/733.htm
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=WEC&hs=G733
The Latin Catholic translation of the Vulgate Bible, translated by St. Jerome (347 – 420), translates this word as "masculorum concubitores", which in Slovak translates to "male concubines", "male adulterers", "male prostitutes", which is the closest to an objective translation.
Sources of information:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masculorum
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concubitoribus
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concubitor#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/concubine

The correct translation and interpretation of the word arsenokojtés

My personal translation of arsenokojtés is "a man who has a lot of sex", which would probably be the most objective, unbiased scientific approach to translation. A free translation could be " womanizer, fornicator, adulterer ".
From an objective scientific, linguistic-translation perspective, the Latin translation of St. Jerome is the closest to the truth. The correct translation is also "male bedfellow". Furthermore, it should be noted that the word arsenokojtés ("male bedfellow") does not specify whether it is a homosexual or heterosexual concubine/bedfellow. Furthermore, no one has yet been able to confirm that the word arsenokojtés was used by the Greeks for a homosexual, although ancient literature in the ancient Greek language is quite rich.
The Slovak Catholic translation of the Bible translates the word arsenokojtés as "men who lie with men", although a more accurate translation is "male bedfellows". Many English translations translate this word directly as homosexuals, sodomites, which is a clear manipulation of the Bible, more at the link . Jehovah's Witnesses and Christians have nothing to reproach each other for when it comes to manipulating Bible translations. On the portal http://obohu.cz/bible/ you can see comparisons of dozens to hundreds of Bible translations. The portal also includes instructions on how to work with the site.
                    A fascinating phenomenon is the "evolutionary" development of the translation of arsenokoitēs. The younger the translation, the more explicitly it is translated as homosexual; the older the translation, the further it is from the meaning of homosexuality. Christian theologians who translated the Bible became more and more entrenched in their bubble, in their self-deception, and became more and more bold and audacious in their translations. You can view older translations here . … The King James Version speaks of abusers of mankind, the Luther Bible of abusers of boys, the Kralice Bible of a sodomite. The interpretation of the term sodomite is broad; it does not suggest interpreting it only as homosexual; this term can also be used to describe a heterosexual who likes to have a lot of sex.
                    Additionally, I managed to find several versions of the Bible, several translations that translate arsenokojtés as fornicator, using the DeepL machine translation, which is considered more accurate than Google Translator. It is fascinating that practically all Ukrainian translations, Bulgarian and older Finnish translations, translate arsenokojtés as fornicator. More at the link . Some older French translations similarly.
It is a very important note that I translated from Greek before I discovered these national translations. The fact that several of us translators have come to the same conclusion confirms the objectivity and impartiality of the translation.

The correct translation and interpretation of the word malakos ( μαλακός )

It occurs in 1 Cor 6:9 . Christian theologians argue that the word malakos is an argument against homosexuality. It literally means soft. In older translations of the Bible, the literal translation of soft appears from time to time, but the term is translated very differently. Some translators translate it outright as homosexual or effeminate.
Biblical theological dictionaries, reference .
However, the objective, unbiased secular dictionary shocks us. The link is here . We see radically different meanings from biblical theological dictionaries. It is beautifully and clearly proven how Christian theologians manipulate dictionaries in order to adapt the translation of the Bible to Christian dogmas and homophobic rhetoric.
In the secular dictionary, we find several meanings that would make sense in the Bible:
morally weak, lacking in self-control, feeble, cowardly
morally weak, without self-control, weak, cowardly
And one of the many meanings is also effeminate.
Some theologians believe that when the words malakos and arsenokoites are relatively close to each other, it may somehow indicate homosexuality in context, or that these terms have a certain connection. However, there is a very strong counter-argument, which is the Codex Sinaiticus . The scribe was extremely economical with space on the parchment, but in the case of these terms, the scribe did not save space and put these words on a new line to make it clear that the words malakos and arsenokoites are not related and are clearly separated. The Codex Sinaiticus again only weakens the argument that it is about homosexuality.

1 Corinthians – Chapter 6 and 1 Timothy – Chapter 1

Official Catholic Translation:
First Letter to the Corinthians – Chapter 6
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites,
10 neither thieves nor greedy people nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will be heirs of the Kingdom of God.
Vulgate translation, reference .
Greek original, translation, reference
Kralice Bible with Strong's numbers translation, reference .
Comparison of several Slovak and Czech translations – link .

Official Catholic Translation:
The First Epistle to Timothy – Chapter 1
8 We know that the law is good if someone uses it correctly,
9 knowing that the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and for anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine,
Vulgate translation, reference .
Greek original translation, reference .
Comparison of several Slovak and Czech translations – link .
In this part of the Bible, the translation of the word arsenokojtés is also used.

There is only one place in the entire Bible where the criticism of homosexuality is mentioned. However, according to the contribution of the Church Fathers, it was a criticism of temple gay prostitution, which was common at that time.
The Epistle to the Romans – Chapter 1
24 Therefore God gave them over to uncleanness in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves:
25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator, who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Therefore God gave them up to shameful passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27 And in the same way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were consumed by lust for one another: men with men committed shameful acts. Thus, they received in themselves the deserved retribution for their error.

Literal translation
24 Therefore God gave them over to the lust of their hearts to impurity , to dishonor their own bodies among themselves.
26 Therefore God gave them over to dishonorable passions . Their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature.
27 And in the same way, men abandoned the natural use of women (female), burned with desire for each other, men with men / lack of form, tastelessness, shame, nakedness / to receive the reward for their / wandering, straying, error / accept.

I put a lot of effort into the translation. You can click on the links of the words to the secular dictionary. Multiple meanings are listed in square brackets.
Comparison of older translations. Verses 24 , 25 , 26 , 27
Comparison of older translations with Strong's numbers. Verse 24 , 25 , 26 , 27

Correct interpretation of the translation and comments on it
The most objective translation is the oldest version of the Kralice Bible. The newer the translations, the stronger the manipulation of the Bible, which condemns homosexuality more sharply and more unambiguously / explicitly.
                    It sends shivers down one's spine to see the disproportionate differences between religious and professional unbiased secular lexicons. It's a crazy sight to see how Christian theologians try to manipulate lexicons so that they can manipulate the Bible to confirm Christian homophobic dogmas/doctrines. It's unbelievable how far Christian theologians are willing to go.
                    The verses are very controversial and contradictory. Theological Christian translators try to manipulate the translations in this part as much as possible.
                    In fact, this part of the Bible is not so clear at all. The objective translation does not condemn homosexuality as clearly, unambiguously, and sharply as modern translations. The author expresses himself ambiguously – he speaks of homosexuality in both negative and positive contexts. It is also necessary to consider the context in which the author wrote the text – homosexual (bisexual) behavior was incomparably more widespread than today, and homophobia did not exist at that time. Talking about homosexuality at that time would not have caused such controversy in people as in today's society full of hatred against the LGBT community.
Christian theologians may argue that we must interpret these Bible verses in a homophobic way because the Old Testament also condemned homosexuality. We see how we are moving in a vicious circle of church misinformation and self-deception. The fact is that even the Old Testament passages that allegedly condemn homosexuality are mistranslated, and Judaism at that time had no objections to it.
                    And now we will not beat around the bush and go straight to the point. Let's list the arguments that suggest positive arguments about homosexuality. The verses say that God himself "gave up" and led people to homosexuality. It is really shocking, but the verses can also be interpreted as God himself leading people to homosexual behavior, albeit indirectly.

Furthermore, verse 27 states that God gave a reward to homosexual men for their wandering. The Greek word antimisthía (reward) has no negative meanings in secular dictionaries, only positive ones.
                    In this paragraph, I will try to find negative arguments against homosexuality in the letter to the Romans. Perhaps the strongest argument could be that the author suggests that homosexuality is unnatural. (The fact that he called it unnatural does not mean that he wanted to suggest the current teaching of the church that it is a sin). But even this argument has its weaker points, because the Greek word para, which expresses the negation of unnaturalness, has a large number of meanings, and some secular dictionaries have a negative meaning, while others do not . Therefore, a translation with a milder, weaker negation might be better: "They exchanged natural use for unnatural."
The Slovak Catholic translation reads "men with men committed indecency." The meaning of the Greek word aschémosyné (indecency) is interesting, which Christian theologians manipulatively translate with meanings that are as emotionally negatively colored as possible. The word aschémosyné contains only very subtle negative meanings in the secular dictionary. The word "indecency" has an extremely strong negative connotation in Slovak. A possible translation is also "men with men did nakedness / shameful things." "Indecency" and "bad taste" also have quite different meanings.
Verse 24 says that they "dishonored their bodies." The term dishonor can also have multiple interpretations. In the time when the author lived, his words were interpreted completely differently than contemporary Christians interpret them (that for dishonoring the body, God will fry you in hell for all eternity). "Dishonor" does not have to have such a negative meaning. It can even have a positive meaning, especially in the context of sexuality if it concerns BDSM practices, which may not have been unknown in the past, although they had a different name for it.
                    Saint John Chrysostom's sermon against homosexuality refers to this verse, arguing mainly about the "unnaturalness" of homosexuality. In the sermon, he expresses his views more than he refers to the Bible.
                     In conclusion: the author of the letter to the Romans expresses himself controversially on the topic of homosexuality. In both positive and negative contexts.

The Myth of Sodomy in the Bible. The city of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality.

This is the least controversial text in the Bible. Even most conservative theologians have no problem admitting that the ancient city of Sodom in the Bible has nothing to do with homosexuality.
There is a widespread misinformation, rooted in a long history, that the Bible states that God destroyed the city of Sodom as a punishment for the practice of homosexuality.
Later, the term Sodomy began to refer to homosexuality and zoophilia. Also the term sodomite (= a person who practices sodomy).
The city of Sodom is mentioned in chapters 18-20 of the book of Genesis. The part that, according to Christian myth, should connect the city of Sodom with homosexuality is Gn 19, 4-11 .
The Book of Judges on the Sodomites, Jdg 19:22 .
Biblegateway.com, link , and comparison of all English translations of Genesis 19:5 .
Comparison of some Slovak and Czech translations .
                    High-quality theological argumentation in Wikipedia , which questions the link with homosexuality. For example, the argument that God wanted to destroy the city even before the Sodomite men had the incident. The argument that the reason for the violence of the Sodomite men towards Lot was not that he did not allow them to "have sex" with men, as the conservative current of Christianity says, but a lack of hospitality.
                     We see quite malicious manipulation of the Bible in Genesis 19:5 . As you can see, this verse, which is key to linking the city of Sodom with homosexuality, has about half of the Bible translations intentionally mistranslated. This is the Hebrew word Yada . In the secular dictionary " Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions " there is no meaning of the word that would associate this term with sexuality. The literal translation is to know, not to have intercourse or sex. A possible loose translation can be "to meet".
The Bible also does not specify what exactly angered the men of Sodom. For example, they might have had a conflict with the men staying with Lot before, and Lot wanted to prevent a conflict, so he offered his daughters instead to appease the angry men.
                     Gen 19:8 is a verse that should give a sexual context to the whole incident. Lot offers his daughters to calm the tense situation. If you look at the Hebrew words, the text is very incomprehensible, so this verse gives a lot of room for highly speculative translations.

More details about the translations of the book of Leviticus

The original Bible in the Hebrew language. A literal translation of Leviticus 18:22 into Slovak.

Leviticus 18:22
"A man should not lie in a woman's bed."
For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman."
Source:
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=OSH&kap=18&k=Lv
https://biblehub.com/strongs/leviticus/18-22.htm
*****************************************************

The Septuagint Bible in Ancient Greek. Literal translation of Leviticus 18:22 into Slovak.

"If a man sleeps in a woman's bed"
For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman."
Source:
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?vs=ano&k=Lv&kap=18&styl=LXXK
*****************************************************

The Targum Bible in Aramaic. Literal translation of Leviticus 18:22 into Slovak

"A woman should not lie down with a man/penis."
For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman."
Source
https://cal.huc.edu/searching/targumsearch.html
*****************************************************

Latin Vulgate Bible. Literal translation of Leviticus 18:22 into Slovak

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman"
"You will not engage in sexual intercourse with a man, woman/female"
Source:
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=SVUL&k=Lv&kap=18
*****************************************************

The original Bible in the Hebrew language. A literal translation of Leviticus 20:13 into Slovak.

Leviticus 20:13
"Whoever lies with a man as a woman lies"
For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "Whoever sleeps with a man as one sleeps with a woman"
Sources:
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=OSH&kap=20&k=Lv
https://biblehub.com/strongs/leviticus/20-13.htm
*****************************************************

Latin Vulgate Bible. Literal translation of Leviticus 20:13 into Slovak

"whoever lies with a male as with a woman"
Two alternative translations:

• Who sleeps with a man, a woman has contact with
• Who sleeps with a man, a woman's touch

Machine automatic translation from Latin: Who sleeps with a man during sexual intercourse with a woman
For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "Whoever sleeps with a man as one sleeps with a woman"
*****************************************************

The Septuagint Bible in Ancient Greek. Literal translation of Leviticus 20:13 into Slovak.

"Which man slept in the woman's bed?"
For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "Whoever sleeps with a man as one sleeps with a woman"
Source:
https://obohu.cz/bible/index.php?styl=LXXK&k=Lv&kap=20
*****************************************************

The Targum Bible in Aramaic. A literal translation of Leviticus 20:13 into Slovak.

Two possible versions, literal translation:

• Someone to lie down with, a man in a bed, a woman.
• Anyone can lie down with a man in a woman's bed.

For comparison, the official translation of the Slovak Catholic Church of the same Hebrew words: "Whoever sleeps with a man as one sleeps with a woman"
Source:
https://cal.huc.edu/get_a_chapter.php?file=51003&sub=20&cset=H
https://cal.huc.edu/searching/targumsearch.html
*****************************************************

Possible "free translations" and interpretations of Leviticus 18:22

Literal translation: "A man does not lie in a woman's bed"
Given that the literal text is incomprehensible, it leaves a lot of room for imagination and speculation, which Christian churches have cleverly exploited to adapt the translation to their official teachings. However, this does not mean that the translation could not be done objectively.
I will provide several possible translations:

• "A woman should not have sexual intercourse with a man."
• "A married woman (=wife) should not have sexual intercourse with (another/a different) man."

Notes:

• The word "isha", literally translated as "woman", also has the meanings of married woman, wife in Hebrew and Aramaic.
• The correct translation has nothing to do with homosexuality, there is no point in discussing it.
• One of the possible literal translations would mean a complete ban on heterosexual intercourse, which we do not assume. Therefore, we will use other meanings of the word "isha", which are married woman, wife, which already makes sense. The meaning of this verse is very simple: it is a ban on marital infidelity.
• Understanding the context will help us find the correct translation. That is, reading the entire 18th chapter . Note that in this chapter, the prohibition of incest and marital infidelity is repeated several times. So the translation of marital infidelity in this verse seems to be the most meaningful.
• The author of the Vulgate translation changed the word "woman" to the adjective "feminine" (femineo ). Although the text is unclear, it may indicate the first attempts to manipulate Bible translations in the sense of prohibiting homosexuality, or more precisely, it allows translators into national languages to speculate more about such a translation.

*****************************************************

Possible "free translations" and interpretations of Leviticus 20:13

Literal translation from Hebrew: "Whoever lies with a man as with a woman"
Free translations, alternatives:

• "Anyone who lies down in bed with a (married) man , (married) woman … "
• "Anyone who lies down in bed with a (married) man and a (married) woman … "
• "Anyone who lies down in bed with a (married) man or (married) woman … "
• Any (foreign) man who lies down in bed with a married woman

Notes:

• The comma in the translation can be replaced by the word "and" or the word "or"
• This is a metaphor, a metaphorical description of marital infidelity.
• Understanding the context will help us find the correct translation. That is, reading the entire 20th chapter . In this chapter, we also find several metaphors, e.g., "do not uncover nakedness." The context of marital infidelity is also supported by the immediately following 14th verse, which is another very strong argument. The prohibition of incest and the prohibition of marital infidelity is repeated several times in chapter 20 – this means that the context confirms the translation in the meaning of the prohibition of marital infidelity, which is repeated.
• The second possible theory of the translation is the prohibition of threesomes, which may consist of either two women or two men.
• Again, the author of the Vulgate translation changed the word "woman" into the adjective "female" (femineo) . Although the text is unclear, it may indicate the first attempts to manipulate Bible translations in the sense of prohibiting homosexuality, or more precisely, it allows translators into national languages to speculate more about such a translation.
• The translation of the word "iš" as man by doc. Prudký is not correct. The correct translation in this context is "anyone", or "person", or "everyone". Source of information: secular dictionary " Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions ", link1 , link2. Most church versions of Bible translations are based on these meanings. Translating "iš" as man further promotes a homophobic attitude.

Jewish translations

It is true that even official Jewish translations (e.g. into English) are very similar to those of Christian churches (although perhaps not all of them). The catch is that Hebrew has not been used for at least 2000 years (e.g. Jesus' language was Aramaic). With the creation of the state of Israel, Hebrew as a language was reconstructed and began to be used. Even for Jews, it is an extreme amount of work to do complete translations from scratch – it is lazier and easier to copy the Christian ones. And modern Hebrew is extremely different from ancient Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew is a primitive language – it would not be possible to communicate in it in the 21st century – that is why this language had to be completely reconstructed by Israeli linguists. In the Talmud and later Jewish texts, there are also positive remarks on homosexuality – before Christianity became the dominant culture, the occurrence of homosexual behavior was very common among all nations and society was very tolerant of it – so the texts in the Talmud are no surprise from a historian's point of view.
                    The official theological teaching of modern Judaism is negative towards homosexuality. Jews have exactly the same problem as Christians. Dogmas, doctrines, and religious fanaticism are superior to the Bible, which prevents the revision of the Bible.
It must be said that Judaism was under an extremely strong influence of Christianity in the past, which was also reflected in the change of the teaching on homosexuality from tolerant to intolerant. Jews were severely persecuted and strictly controlled by the church in Europe, and the church intensively interfered in their lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_homosexuality

Conclusion. Consequences of this article. Related topics

• The prohibition of homosexuality in the church has no biblical basis. Even when there were personalities in the church who preached against homosexuality, the Bible was the last thing they referred to. The proof is the sermon of Saint John Chrysostom. In his sermon, he only mentions Romans 1:26-27, which is the only place in the Bible that speaks negatively about homosexuality. We must take the Bible in its complexity, because it speaks positively about homosexuality in at least two places, where the relationship between David and Jonathan is described. The first homophobic translations of the Bible were started by Martin Luther.
• For secular people, the information in this article is not very important, but for religious people, it is of enormous importance. The impacts and consequences of this article are absolutely revolutionary for them. Believers will learn how their church has deceived them, which can also cause a total psychological breakdown of the believer. Raising awareness among believers makes a lot of sense.
• For mainstream Protestant Christians, this article is literally an existential problem. Protestants are guided literally only by the Bible, and when they learn that their "word of God" is poorly translated, it can cause them a total mental breakdown. On the other hand, it can teach them humility not to take the Bible fanatically and literally.
• This article will make Christians perceive their religion more critically and humbly, and not take their faith fanatically.
• This article should also inspire the church to change its teaching on homosexuality. For conservative Christians, who are mentally in the Middle Ages, it is unimaginable for the church to change its teaching on either homosexuality or contraception. Catholics consider the entire teaching of the church to be immutable and impossible to change. Conservative Catholic Christians forget and do not want to understand that the church has undergone several reforms and changes in its teaching during its existence – e.g. the Second Vatican Council brought about absolutely revolutionary changes in the church's teaching. The Catholic Church also supported at least one type of contraception, the method of monitoring the menstrual cycle, which was also previously considered impossible.
• In the past, it may have been reasonable for the church to ban contraception and homosexuality. After the plague epidemics and major wars (such as the wars between Catholics and Protestants), Europeans might have even died out completely. Nowadays, when planet Earth is experiencing a population explosion, with the population recently reaching 8 billion, the church's teachings are incompatible with the 21st century.
• This article has broad implications for Christians, literally existential ones. It will help believers understand that the Bible translations about homosexuality are not the only places where the church has deliberately lied and distorted Bible translations.
• Practicing believers naively believe that the church is an authentic and perfect work of God. After reading this article, they will have a mental breakdown when they learn how their church and religion have deceived them.
• while this article is not significant for a secular person, for mainstream Christians it is literally an existential problem
• I appreciate liberal Christians, pastors like the Pastoral Brothers , very positively. They are able to see the flaws in the Bible. Unfortunately, their attitude is not mainstream in Christian churches.
• Are registered partnerships contrary to the Christian faith? Can a Christian MP vote for them? Registered partnerships are not contrary to the mainstream Christian faith. Christianity only deals with sexuality, but registered partnerships do not affect the amount of sex. Christian politicians have no problem politically and financially supporting people who do not live according to Christian teaching in terms of sexuality, such as single mothers (e.g. support for social benefits for children). None of the Christian conservatives call for discrimination against single mothers. I see no reason why conservative Christians should have a problem with registered partnerships.
• The issue of registered partnerships. The absurdity of Russian propaganda. Approximately half of the laws concern some minority (e.g., people who work in a profession regulated by law). Practically every person is part of some minority. As soon as legislators want to change laws concerning the LGBT minority, there is a problem with hatred and conspiracies. When laws concerning other minorities are changed, no one has a problem with it. Even children who have lost their families, who require institutional care and are placed in an orphanage or foster care, belong to a minority, and this is governed by law. No one complains, as with LGBT people, that it is unfair that these children have some fantastic advantages.
• Jesus was a liberal : the liberal Jesus criticized the conservative Pharisees. Jesus was against traditionalism and conservatism, against the observance of meaningless laws and prohibitions of Judaism. The Church, or mainstream Christianity, is as Pharisaical as the Pharisees. The Church invents prohibitions and commandments beyond the Bible. And this does not only concern homosexuality, registered partnerships, but also contraception or masturbation.
• The homophobic roots of the church . In the past, there was something like a Christian version of Sharia law. This means that the church imposed its legal system on the secular power of the monarch. Specifically, the death penalty for homosexuality in most Christian monarchies in Europe. Conservative Christians mentally tune into the energies of the egregore of the past. The energies of the past are still very strong today. This explains why Christians still view homosexuality 1000 times more negatively than heterosexual sexual offenses. … Furthermore, Russian propaganda specifically targets conservative Christians and thus strengthens the egregore of the past. And it works perfectly. Many Christians consider aggressive homophobia and belief in disinformation and conspiracies as an integral part of their faith. … Under the monarchy, there was the death penalty for homosexuality – and conservative Christians still long for the return of a church state like the monarchy. This is a battle of times – past and future.
• The case of Bishop Ján Orosh : Despite the fact that Bishop Orosh sent out a non-public circular intended only for priests, it is not actually that non-public. Based on Christian teaching, a bishop is a very strong authority for priests, and priests do indeed perceive the bishop as such (I know this from my own experience). It is an unwritten rule that what the bishop says, priests should further spread in their sermons, and this is indeed what happens. Furthermore, Bishop Orosh apologized, figuratively speaking, with a gun to his head. His apology cannot be considered sincere because it was not voluntary. If Orosh had not apologized, the other bishops could have sent a complaint to the Vatican, and Orosh would have ended up like Bezák, meaning he would have faced dismissal. Most bishops internally approve of Orosh's homophobia, but on the other hand, they realize that his public statements are inappropriate as they damage the church's good name. The Conference of Bishops forced Orosh to apologize not for sincere reasons but only for the good name of the church in society.

Related links

• https://magazin.gnosis.cz/tajne-markovo-evangelium/
  
  ( https://magazin.gnosis.cz/tajne-markovo-evangelium/ ">link backup)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Jesus#Homosexuality
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
• Eunuchs in the Bible What is a eunuch in the Bible? https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/eunuchs-in-the-bible/
• Interesting links on the topic of LGBT in this article https://filozofia.nett.to/krestanstvo/sk/teroristicky-utok-v-bratislave
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviticus_18

Bisexual culture in the Middle East
Just type "history of homosexuality in the Middle East" into Google and you will find a very interesting scientific article. In Muslim countries, the bisexual culture was preserved in rural areas until 1900. European travelers were very surprised when traveling through the Arab world and Persia in the 16th to 18th centuries when they saw the bisexual culture. In the past, such a culture existed all over the planet. And somewhere it disappeared earlier due to the influence of Christianity, elsewhere later.
Homosexuality in the Middle East: An Agenda for Historical Research. … Bruce W. Dunne https://www.jstor.org/stable/41857885?seq=2

……………….

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/41857885.pdf

Updated 6/9/2025

Theological arguments in favor of church reform: A more tolerant approach to queer people

Now we start from the thesis that incorrect translations of the Bible on homosexuality are correct. Even under such circumstances, there is room for church reform in the area of a more tolerant approach to queer people, although conservative Christians claim that church reform is impossible. Conservative believers are ignorant and do not realize that Christianity has been reformed many times throughout history, so it is possible in the future as well.
Conservative believers claim that we must follow the Bible and that a tolerant approach to queer people is not possible. However, there is a very strong theological counter-argument. Christians today no longer take the Bible, neither the Old nor the New Testament, literally. In the Old Testament, God tells the Jews to kill their enemies. The New Testament is also full of controversial passages that Christians do not follow either. Disrespectful statements towards women, or the cursing of Ananias and Sapphira by the Apostle Peter, who died after the curse. This is very far from the Christian love that Christians preach.
Just as Christians do not follow the insults to women in the Bible and do not perform curses in the manner of the Apostle Peter, it is possible to ignore the Bible's statements against homosexuality.

Acts 5:1-11
Acts 5:1-2: "A certain man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. But he took some of the proceeds with his wife's knowledge, and kept some for himself, and brought the rest and laid it at the apostles' feet."
Acts 5:3-4 (Peter's curse on Ananias): "Peter said to him, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.'"
After these words, Ananias fell dead. Later, his wife Sapphira came, and Peter accused her of the same act, after which she also died.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35:
"Women should keep silent in the assemblies, for they are not allowed to speak, but they should be subordinate, as the law also says. If they want to learn something, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for a woman to speak in the assembly."
1 Timothy 2:11-14:
"Let the woman learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

👨‍❤️‍👨 Registered partnership and conservative values

                    Furthermore, I would like to comment on the Christian teaching on the topic of registered partnership . A registered partnership is also a conservative value . So it's really strange that even various politicians who claim to be conservatives don't want to open up registered partnerships. Which is quite strange and what contradictions exist. Well, there are many, many contradictions.
                    The most conservative politicians are those who live with various mistresses, such as Boris Kollár, and pretend to be conservatives. Or Zoroslav Kollár, who also sleeps with all sorts of mistresses and also claims to be some kind of conservative and so on. It's all upside down, this endless contradiction.
                    But even from the perspective of the Catholic Church, very staunch conservatives should not have a problem with registered partnerships, or voting for them. Because simply, if they have such strong objections to homosexuality, then the sexuality that the Catholic Church probably objects to the most, is precisely limited by the registered partnership, which actually ensures a long-term relationship . So it really at least limits the sexuality that bothers them so much.
                    And not to mention that the registered partnership itself is not about sex. The registered partnership itself is a registered partnership. And a registered partnership is not equal to sex . That's what bothers those conservative Christians so much. Personally, I think there's no problem for some conservative Christians to vote for such a law. On the one hand, on the other hand, we see that rationality in politics is probably the biggest problem. It's such an endless contradiction of those religious fundamentalists in politics. It's all upside down. I absolutely don't understand it.
                    So be it. Christianity is based on fear. The basis of Christianity is the fear of hell. But even a furious conservative Catholic Christian does not have to be afraid to vote in parliament for registered partnership. God will certainly not fry him in hell for such a thing when he votes for it. Because registered partnership is a conservative Christian value that is in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church . So you, as a Christian MP, do not have to be afraid to vote for registered partnership. And you do not have to confess to the priest after the vote. Because it is not a sin to vote for registered partnership. But many Catholic MPs do not understand this.

📖 Homosexuality and the Revision of the Bible

                    Now I will talk about the topic of homosexuality and the Bible . Even liberal theologians have fallen for the trap of conservative theologians. It is very strange that it did not occur to even the liberal theologians to revise the translation of the Bible , as far as the Old Testament is concerned. Because there is no mention of homosexuality there. But here we actually see that the Christian egregore is very strong. It has very strong protective mechanisms, so that even the liberal theologian is de facto somewhat manipulated by this egregore.
                    On the other hand, the statement about homosexuality in the Old Testament does not have much theological significance. Because, if we take it, the whole Bible is full of violence and the death penalty in the Bible is mentioned even for absolute nonsense. And some other nonsense. For example, the Bible tells the story of Onan , whom the Lord punished and gave him the death penalty. And Onan died because he practiced so-called coitus interruptus . Likewise, in the Bible, we find the death penalty for some completely different nonsense. So this statement is not taken as very relevant from the Old Testament. That is why the statements in the New Testament are argued more.
                    But even the interpretation of those statements in the New Testament by those liberal theologians, in my opinion, the argumentation is not correct. They fell for the conservatives' trap a bit. Those liberal theologians mostly explain it in such a way that homosexuality is forbidden only in the sense that the original author of the Bible, probably Saint Paul, meant it in such a way that homosexuality was forbidden only in the form of slave abuse . And it is really true that at that time slaves were sometimes abused in the form of some homosexual satisfaction. Yes, it is true that this is what was meant. And it is certainly possible to interpret that statement in the Bible in a moderate way, even in this way. That if you want to, you can really interpret the Bible differently. Where there's a will, there's a way.
                    On the one hand, on the other hand, I see it a little differently. This word is actually derived from the Greek words for man and bed. And for example, the Kralice Bible translates it quite faithfully, translating it as "same-bedder ". But I personally am convinced that even the original author (whoever he was) did not necessarily mean homosexuality by this, because the word "same-bedder" can also mean that it is an ordinary promiscuous man . Or a man who is simply a womanizer, or just an ordinary promiscuous man. That it does not necessarily mean homosexuality. Here we see that the Christian egregore has enormous power and enormous strength. That even the liberal theologian does not have the energy to interpret some things in a more acceptable way. Personally, I don't think that homosexuality should be sought behind it at all costs. That it really captures it quite responsibly.

🗣️ Jesus and the Eunuchs

                     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunuch
                    Translation by Jozef Roháček – authorized version by Dušan Seberíni
                    Matthew, chapter 19
                     10 Then his disciples said to him, "If this is the situation of a man with his wife, it is not good to marry." 11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone who can accept this, accept it."
                     
                    In the Bible, Jesus speaks about eunuchs . He mentions them quite often and repeatedly. And it is quite possible that homosexuals could have been meant in such a context. That the eunuch could have been metaphorically understood in this way. These are indeed quite controversial parts of the Bible that are translated differently. The Catholic Bible translates it as " those who have no children" . The Kralice Bible translates it as " virgin" . Of course, neither can be seen as necessarily an incorrect translation, nor the virgin. However, on the other hand, if we take a certain historical context, it cannot be ruled out that it could have been meant as the word homosexual. The eunuch, of course, in a metaphorical sense. Because the entire New Testament uses metaphorical language very often.
                    Of course, nowadays it would be extremely controversial to say, as it is written in the Bible, that someone became a eunuch voluntarily. Or rather, if it were to be translated as homosexual, it would be very controversial nowadays.
                    On the other hand, we must realize what the times were like back then. That even the Jewish culture that existed at that time was actually extremely tolerant of homosexuality. In the Old Testament, we do not have even a negative mention of homosexuality. On the contrary, the Bible even speaks positively about David and Jonathan, how they had a successful homosexual relationship. The incorrect translations of the statement about homosexuality in the Old Testament arose only later. We must perceive it in this context.
                    We also have to perceive the context that such a statement would not have been controversial at all at that time. That for the Kingdom of God, to become or to live a homosexual lifestyle would not have been controversial at all at that time, because at that time there was really something like a bisexual culture on the whole planet, which very strongly supported such a lifestyle.
                    Another thing is that when the Bible says that someone became a eunuch (or homosexual) " for the kingdom of God" , it should be realized that it is quite meaningful and practical. If someone wants to devote themselves fully to that spirituality, to the kingdom of God, it is logical that it is not very advantageous to have a relationship with a woman, because you then have to take care of the children. That is not very advantageous for the kingdom of God if you want to devote yourself to that spirituality. If you have that homosexual relationship, you don't have children, and therefore you can fully devote yourself to that spirituality. So that would be practical.
                    We also have to realize that it was a completely different time, there was no contraception. This means that homosexuality as a form of contraception was a relatively popular practice at that time. There was a completely different context then. Nowadays, such a statement would be very controversial, but not at that time.
                    These are also controversial statements in the Bible, but they can be interpreted in this way. Yes, it can certainly be translated as " panic" . Certainly, even at that time, the word eunuch was associated with some sexual restraint, and it certainly had such symbolism, but perhaps the author used the word eunuch ambiguously so that it could be interpreted both ways. The unknown author of the Bible – although it is attributed to some apostles, even today the Catholic Church admits that the Bible was written after the death of the apostles.
                    My opinion is that the original author who wrote it, you can't say that someone has a patent on the truth. Just as it is possible to translate it as virgin , as the Catholic Church translates it, so too can the word homosexual be a correct translation. It can also be interpreted correctly this way.
                     Another argument in favor of the eunuch symbolizing a homosexual is that both the eunuch and the homosexual share the same attribute: weakened masculinity. While a eunuch has no testosterone production, one of the homosexual partners takes on a female role.

Updated 11.12.2025

Martin Luther's translation: arsenokoites. Knabenschänder

Although Martin Luther was a homophobe, he does not translate the words arsenokoites and malakos in a homophobic way, but in a friendly way towards LGBT people. Martin Luther's translation is an atomic bomb that will destroy all the arguments of conservative theologians. I am surprised that almost all liberal theologians have partially fallen for the incorrect interpretation/argumentation of the traditional conservative interpretation.
              Although Martin Luther's translations of the Old Testament book of Leviticus are homophobic and his incorrect translations have become the basis for modern Christians in arguing against homosexuality, his translations in the New Testament are more favorable to LGBT people. He translates arsenokoites as Knabenschänder = boy abuser. And the word "boy abuser" has a completely different meaning than homosexual or gay. How could Martin Luther have come to such a translation when the word arsenokoites itself says nothing about orientation, nor does it follow from the context of the biblical verses? Apparently, even at that time, Martin Luther was familiar with the writings of the early church fathers, who gave these biblical verses a meaning/interpretation mainly in the context of criticizing pederasty and the sexual abuse and exploitation often associated with it, which was a widespread phenomenon at that time.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the fornicators, nor the idolaters, nor the adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor the sodomites

Does the biblical story of the centurion's servant have a homosexual subtext?

Link1 , link2
When we consider that the translations of the book of Leviticus regarding the prohibition of homosexuality were falsified and Leviticus does not contain any mention against homosexuality, and when we consider that at that time there was a bisexual culture all over the planet, when we consider the context of the time, it is very highly probable that this is a homosexual story.
Jewish culture was no exception to bisexual culture – the Bible explicitly mentions the erotic relationship between David and Jonathan.

Citations and references to several scientific papers, diploma theses, and professional publications on the topic of translations, Biblical philology, and hermeneutics.

Professional publications are quite difficult to find and are not as popular as the interpretations of the Bible by conservative Christians. I had to use artificial intelligence to help me find the publications.
I was very pleased and positively surprised that I am not the only one who has uncovered the falsification of Bible translations. I was also positively surprised that many of my results as an amateur researcher independently coincide with the research of esteemed professors from the academic community. Especially the translation of the book of Leviticus about marital infidelity.

Bethel University Thesis by Taylor Patz

Bethel University (Minnesota) is a Baptist university and has nothing to do with the controversial sectarian Pentecostal movement, which also calls itself Bethel. Taylor Patz's thesis is valuable and interesting, and it challenges the traditional conservative teaching of the church. In some areas, the argumentation is very good, in others, the argumentation is a bit weak. Link here .
                An example of what this work contains : Patristic and Early Medieval Theological Categorization of the word Arsenokoitai: Early Church Fathers, such as Polycarp and Clement of Alexandria, cited a list of sins, but did not attach specific emphasis to ἀρσενοκοῖται , interpreting it rather as a general moral admonition.

catholic.com conservative arguments

The Early Church vs. Homosexuality. Statements of the early Christian "Church Fathers" on catholic.com. A manipulative article from the hard conservative core. This is a typical and frequent manipulation by conservative theologians, who try to argue that the church authors of that time criticized the problems of that era, such as pederasty, homosexual acts between slave and master, homosexual prostitution, or various gay and eunuch orgies in pagan temples, as being the same as the current modern understanding of homosexuality. Link here .

The funniest part is the passage in the context of the bisexual culture of that time, when homosexual behavior was an incomparably more significant sociological and demographic phenomenon than it is today. The enormous inner struggle with the temptation of homosexuality and the paranoia from it. Author: Basil the Great, machine translation.
"Whoever is guilty of indecency with men shall be punished in the same way as adulterers" (Letters 217:62 [367 AD]). …
"If you are [O monk] young in body or mind, avoid the company of other young men and avoid them as if they were a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then delivered them to the eternal fire, casting them into the abominable pit of the five cities under the pretext of spiritual love… At the meal, sit far from other young men. When you lie down to sleep, let their clothes not be near yours, but rather let an old man be between you. When a young man speaks to you or sings psalms facing you, answer him with downcast eyes, so that by looking into his face you do not receive the seed of desire sown by the enemy and do not reap the sheaves of ruin and destruction. Whether you are in a house or in a place where no one sees your actions, do not be in his company under the pretext of studying divine oracles or any other matter, however necessary it may be" (Renunciation of the World [373 AD]).

The English "original" from catholic.com
Basil the Great
"He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers" (Letters 217:62 [AD 367]).
"If you [O, monk] are young in either body or mind, shun the companionship of other young men and avoid them as you would a flame. For through them the enemy has kindled the desires of many and then handed them over to eternal fire, hurling them into the vile pit of the five cities under the pretense of spiritual love. . . . At meals take a seat far from other young men. In lying down to sleep let not their clothes be near yours, but rather have an old man between you. When a young man converses with you, or sings psalms facing you, answer him with eyes cast down, lest perhaps by gazing at his face you receive a seed of desire sown by the enemy and reap sheaves of corruption and ruin. Whether in the house or in a place where there is no one to see your actions, be not found in his company under the pretense either of studying the divine oracles or of any other business whatsoever, however necessary” (The Renunciation of the World [AD 373]).

Homosexuality in the New Testament, Wikipedia

Some sections of this text are of good quality. Richer argumentation against the conservative interpretation. Link here .
Quote : Jeramy Townsley further specifies the context of Romans 1:26–27 as a continuation of Paul's condemnation of the worship of pagan gods from the previous part of the chapter, linking the "homosexuality" indicated in Romans 1:27 with the practice of temple prostitution with the castrated priests of Cybele, practices more explicitly condemned in the Old Testament.

History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality, Wikipedia

A lower quality article, many arguments that the early church and the first councils / synods condemned / punished homosexuality in the current sense are missing. Also, parts are poorly armed. It is mainly about the criticism of non-observance of celibacy among priests and monks, pederasty, prostitution and the like. Link here .

The Bible and homosexuality. Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality ">Link.

Patristic Interpretations of Romans 1:26, Bernadette Brooten 1989. Professional publication

It makes sense to read older publications like this, which tend to be more objective because at that time there were not such passions of cultural wars as today.
Augustine interpreted this part of the Bible as referring to the "unnatural" sexual intercourse of homosexuals, such as oral sex.
Focused on female homosexuality.
Link here .

Leviticus 18:22 Queer Bible Hermeneutics Just another SMU Blog System Sites site

Lower quality article
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2016/05/11/leviticus-1822/

Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26–27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and “Sex Contrary to Nature”? Jeramy Townsley

An exceptionally high-quality interpretation, very well-supported by arguments and facts. Claims are substantiated by early Christian theologians and Church Fathers. The argument is that the biblical passage criticizes pagan gay rituals, temple prostitution, and the like, not the contemporary form of homosexuality.
Link1 , https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeramy-Townsley/publication/236680179_Queer_Sects_in_Patristic_Commentaries_on_Romans_126-27_Goddess_Cults_Free_Will_and_Sex_Contrary_to_Nature/links/00463518ef3e8458fd000000/Queer-Sects-in-Patristic-Commentaries-on-Romans-126-27-Goddess-Cults-Free-Will-and-Sex-Contrary-to-Nature.pdf ">link2

Lost in Translation: Alternative Meaning in Leviticus 18:22

A lower quality article, but there are a few valuable excerpts of text on the topic of translation.
Reference .

Affirmative Interpretive Translation of Leviticus 18:22, By Rabbi David Greenstein

Although the author may be mistaken, his hypothesis is still incomparably more likely to be closer to the truth than the idea that the biblical passage refers to homosexuality. It does not necessarily have to be about rape, but also a general ban on group sex in threes, or temple pagan prostitution, which was common at the time. The hypothesis of interpretation that it is about marital infidelity – its correctness seems more probable and is also part of a broader professional consensus, but even this author, the rabbi, still thinks very reasonably and logically.
Quote from the author: "The prohibition therefore applies to a man to join another male partner for the purpose of gang-raping a woman." Reference .

Academic Statement on the Ethics of Free and Faithful Same-Sex Relationships (Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research)

Many theologians and scientists have signed a declaration calling on the Catholic Church not to refer to falsified Bible translations and to adapt its teachings to current scientific and theological knowledge.
Link here .

Christian Objections to Same Sex Relationships: An Academic Assessment. Interim Research Report. (Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research)

Quality scientific work. The most interesting part is the topic of the Bible translation. The most high-quality analysis is the warning about incorrect translations of the Bible in the Old Testament, the book of Leviticus. It is a great pity that they did not incorporate the super-quality scientific research on the topic of Romans 1:26-27 by Jeramy Townsley into their work.
Link here .

Translations of Malakoi and Arsenokoitai through History (I Cor 6:9). Jeramy Townsley

History of the development of Bible translations Malakoi and Arsenokoitai
Link here .

THE MEANING OF "μαλακοὶ" AND "ἀρσενοκοῖται" ACCORDING TO THE APOSTLE PAUL An exegetical analysis of 1 Corinthians 6:9-20

Poor quality diploma thesis in Italian. Reference

Misleading manipulation by conservative theologians. The connection of Paul's word Arsenokoitai with the book of Leviticus

Even the strongly conservative theologian John Granger Cook of LaGrange College, USA, does not refer to such argumentation. Nevertheless, this misguided thesis enjoys considerable popularity. It is based on the apparent logic and considerable imagination that Paul used Arsenokoitai as a new wordplay for homosexuality in the context of the Old Testament. In the book of Leviticus, parts that are incorrectly translated and believers mistakenly believe refer to homosexuality also contain the words man and bed. This argument cannot be logical because the book of Leviticus does not address homosexuality, and these are demonstrably bad translations.

The Bible, Christianity and Homosexuality

Although not a professional publication, the argumentation is in full accordance with the scientific consensus.
Link here

Emperor Justinian

The prohibition of homosexuality in Europe and the significant popularization of the idea that Sodom was associated with homosexuality was an initiative of state power and not of the church itself.

(AI content including sources): Justinian's Novellae 77 (538) and 141 (544 CE) are a critical turning point. Justinian explicitly linked the most heinous practices with God's wrath, arguing that overlooking these acts could bring about destruction (plagues, earthquakes, famine). This theological justification transformed sodomy into an existential threat to society.

Christian emperors collected taxes from gay prostitutes

Here we see that the situation was far from simple and one-sided.

The Christian emperors continued to collect taxes on male prostitutes until the time of Anastasius (ruled in Constantinople – 491-581). But there are occasional laws which seem to have been directed against homosexuality. Link here .

Machine translation
Christian emperors continued to collect taxes from male prostitutes until the time of Anastasius (reigned in Constantinople – 491-581). However, there are occasional laws that seem to be directed against homosexuality.

μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται: In Defence of Tertullian's Translation, John Granger Cook, LaGrange College, USA

The opinion of a conservative theologian, a professor at a Methodist college, who believes that arsenokoites should be translated as homosexual in the Bible. He argues that several Church Fathers (Tertullian, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine) translated ἀρσενοκοῖται as " masculorum concubitores ", meaning that the translation refers to all homosexual behavior, not just male prostitution. His argument is flawed because the phrase masculorum concubitores primarily refers to male prostitution. Link 1, Link 2
                  John Granger Cook contradicts himself and gets stuck in his argumentation because several parts of his argumentation rather support the suffix -koites in a strongly negative sexual context, such as zoophilia, which confirms that ἀρσενοκοῖται is not about healthy same-sex intercourse but rather sexuality in prostitution, slavery, etc. Someone on Reddit referred to a video where they claimed that the suffix "-koite" means the English "fucker," which is consistent with Cook's work.

An interesting section from Cook's work is that the ban on homosexuality in Europe in the 6th century was an initiative of state power and not of the church itself.

At least two bishops have not yet given up the pagan way of thinking and pagan culture, they have not yet given up the practice of pederasty, for which Emperor Justinian had their genitals amputated in the 6th century.
The Christian Emperor Justinian was the greatest fighter against homosexuality in the history of Europe – he was the first emperor to introduce strict penalties – he justified this by saying that he wanted to prevent natural disasters, crop failure, and famine.

ἀνδροβάτης, which Chantraine defines as paedicator (male penetrator of a male), should also be included in the analysis of the word field.*' Hesychius (sth-6th cent.) makes this word's meaning clear: παιδοπίπας: ἀρσενοβάτης, ἀνδροβάτης ('pederast: penetrator of a male; penetrator of a male'). ἀνδροκοίτης (PGL: 'sodomite'), which appears in John Malalas' Chronicle (ca. 570),"" is also of value. In 528 some bishops had been accused of homoerotic intercourse with males [ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ διεβλήθησάν τινες τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἀπὸ διαφόρων ἐπαρχιῶν ὡς κακῶς βιοῦντες περὶ τὰ σωματικὰ καὶ ἀρσενοκοιτοῦντες)."" The prefect of Constantinople exiled Isaiah of Rhodes and cut off Alexander the bishop of Diospolis' penis. The sovereign (Justinian) immediately decreed that those found in pederastic relationships have their penises cut off [καὶ εὐθέως προσέταξεν ὁ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς τοὺς ἔν παιδεραστίαις EVPLGKOLEVOUS καυλοτομεῖσθαι). Malalas then writes: 'At that time many men who had sexual intercourse with men were gathered together, and after their penises were cut off, they died' [καὶ συνεσχέθησαν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ πολλοὶ ἀνδροκοῖται, καὶ καυλοτομηθέντες ἀπέθανον). The obvious result was that 'thereafter fear was upon those who suffered from the desire for males' [καὶ ἐγένετο ἔκτοτε φόβος KATH τῶν νοσούντων τὴν TOV ἀρρένων ἐπιθυμίαν). The verb form [ἀνδροκοιτέω) usually referred to women having sex with men and is well attested in the documentary papyri.** These powerful men were in relationships of 'pederasty' – in other words, they were the erastai in love with younger men, the eremenoi, and were the penetrating partners.

Machine translation into Slovak
The ἀνδροβάτης, which Chantraine defines as a pedicator (male penetrator of a male), should also be included in the analysis of the word field.*' Hesychius (6th century) clarifies the meaning of this word: πατιδοπίάπας,ενίπας,ε ἀνδροβάτης ("pederast: penetrator of a male; penetrator of a male"). The ἀνδροκοίτης (PGL: 'sodomite'), which appears in the chronicle of John Malalas (c. 570), is also valuable. In 528, some bishops were accused of homoerotic relations with men [ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ διεβλήθησάν τινες τῶνπππσνπππισνπππισνσνππισ διαφήριος ὡς κακῶς βιοῦντες περὶ τὰ σωματικὰ καὶ ἀρσενοκοιτοedῦντετσενοκοιτοredϿντετοιτοredϿντενοιτο). Isaiah of Rhodes and the penis of Alexander, bishop of Diospolis, were cut off. The ruler (Justinian) immediately decided that those found in pederastic relationships would have their penises cut off [καὶ εὐθέως προσεταξεν ὁ αὐτὸς βασιλεώςτονο παιδεραστίαις EVPLGKOLEVOUS καυλοτομεῖσθαι). Malalas then writes: 'At that time, many men who had sex with men gathered, and after their penises were cut off, they died' ἀνδροκοῖται, καὶ καυλοτομηθέντες ἀπέθανον]. The obvious result was that "then there was fear for those who suffered from the desire for men" [καὶ ἐγένετο ἔκτοτε φόβος KATH τῶν νοσούντων τὴν TOV ἀρν TOV ἀρν TOV ἀρν ἐπιθυμίαν). The verbal form [ἀνδροκοίτεω) usually referred to women having sex with men and is well attested in documentary papyri.** These powerful men were in "pederasty" relationships – in other words, they were erastai in love with younger men, eremenoi, and were penetrating partners.

Dispute over the interpretation of the phrase " masculorum concubitores"

This is probably the most important part of the whole article, which definitively proves that arsenokoites does not mean homosexuality but the abuse of a child slave for child prostitution.

Several Church Fathers (Tertullian, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Augustine) translated arsenokoites as "masculorum concubitores".

Homosexual male concubines in English Wikipedia. Extremely interesting and useful articles. These parts of the articles very clearly state how to properly interpret the phrase "masculorum concubitores". It was mostly pederasty in the role of a slave – child slave, child prostitution. The worst form of pederasty.
(In ancient Greece, there were also slightly more positive forms of pederasty relationships, which were with the permission of the parents, and the parents also regularly checked the child to ensure that no inhumane treatment occurred. However, the slave had no protection, no rights).
We assume that the Bible criticizes the slave owner, not the slave in this pederastic cohabitation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concubinatus#Concubinus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Concubinus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Puer_delicatus
****************
The concubina , a female concubine who might be free, held a protected legal status under Roman law , but the concubinus did not, since he was typically a slave.

Literary references generally treat the concubinus of a man as a form of puer delicatus , a well-groomed slave boy who might be so young that from the perspective of 21st-century sexual ethics the relationship would express pedophilia.
****************
Slovak machine translation
A concubine, a female concubine who could be free, had a protected legal status under Roman law, but the male concubine did not, as he was usually a slave.

Literary references generally understand a man's concubine as a form of puer delicatus, a well-groomed slave who could be so young that, from the perspective of 21st-century sexual ethics, this relationship would be considered pedophilia.
****************
It is admirable that Martin Luther translated the word arsenokoites most accurately among all published translations: Knabenschänder.

Malakoi
If we take into account the context that the word arsenokoites should be correctly translated as a slave owner in the field of pederasty, then malakoi, due to the context, cannot refer to homosexuality.
Tertullian and Jerome had the opportunity to use the word concubinus for a passive homosexual when translating Paul's letters from Greek to Latin, but they did not use it. From this , it can be deduced that the word malakoi was not meant in the context of homosexuality but in the sense of general moral weakness.

Differences between the words Concubitor, Concubinus and Concubine

A concubine is a woman who is a concubine.
A concubinus is a predominantly younger and predominantly passive partner. The male version of a female concubine. The term is not used for a female concubine.
Concubitor is a more controversial word with a lower occurrence. Various Latin translation dictionaries were hastily put together, outrageously sloppy work. The people behind these translation dictionaries did not bother to look up the word concubitor in Latin literature and determine the more precise meaning of this word according to the context. They focused solely on translation based on the etymology of the word, which is a serious mistake.
A concubitor is usually an older, richer, active partner. The word was used to refer to a man who has his female concubine or a gay concubine.

More details on the meaning of the word concubitor

Dictionaries
https://www.dizionario-latino.com/dizionario-latino-italiano.php?parola=concubitor
https://www.navigium.de/latein-woerterbuch/concubitor
**********************
Tribunus Marianus
The declamation entitled Tribunus Marianus (or On the Marian Tribune) is part of a collection of rhetorical texts that in late antiquity were attributed to the famous Roman teacher of rhetoric Quintilian (Marcus Fabius Quintilianus), (c. 35 – c. 100 AD), although they are probably not his authentic work.

Citing an excerpt from a work:
[3] However, most pious emperor, your soldier lived and acted in such a way that he could have been believed to have prostituted himself even among weapons. I do not like a soldier's feminine care of his skin, nor the petulance of his eyes, nor his furtive and oblique glances, nor his artfully arranged hair, nor his affected softness of gestures or words, nor, finally, his more relaxed gait, nothing at all that could be considered an enticement to lewdness. [4] For anyone who was entangled and seduced by these things, if he was a male concubine , could have been subdued without hesitation. Your soldier was not ashamed to be invited by gifts, did not refuse to be softened by flattery, did not despise being relieved by remissions, indeed emulating the charity and character of a harlot, who willingly adheres to the rich and tends to withdraw from the poor. If I were to praise him as too chaste or sufficiently chaste, I myself confess that I would be lying.
Reference

Machine translation into Slovak
Nevertheless, the most pious emperor, your soldier lived in such a way, whether by deeds or by habits, that one might think he indulged in prostitution, even when he was in arms. I do not like a soldier's feminine care of his skin, nor his sullen gaze, nor his furtive and oblique glances, nor his artistically styled hair, nor the feigned delicacy of his gestures or words, nor finally his more relaxed gait, nothing at all that could be considered a form of lewdness. [4] For if he had been a concubine of men, he could have unhesitatingly subjugated anyone who became entangled with them and was tempted. Your soldier was not ashamed when invited by gifts, he was not afraid to be softened by flattery, he did not despise relief from forgiveness, he certainly imitated the kindness and character of a prostitute who likes to cling to the rich and withdraws from the poor. And if I have certainly called him too modest or not modest enough, I admit that I myself have lied.
Link1 , link2

The issue of dating this work:
Some experts speculate whether to date this work to the 6th or 7th century. Personally, I disagree with this view and consider it outrageous nonsense. To speak so ostentatiously about sexual and homosexual themes would certainly not have been possible in the 7th century. Let's not be crazy. At the latest, such a work could have come from the period before Emperor Justinian came to power, who very harshly and violently persecuted gays.
My opinion is that this work belongs to pre-Christian Rome, at the latest to the late 2nd century.
I don't think the author would be motivated to write a work about the too distant and outdated imperial past.
****************
Warning: Take the content in the tables with a large grain of salt. The content was generated by AI, but it was unable to show me the source, so I am unable to verify the information. All other content, however, is verified.

A quotation from the collection of imperial biographies known as Scriptores Historiae Augustae.

*********************
*********************

Less relevant recent occurrences of the word concubitor

Emperor Justinian, his legal regulations. A case where a concubitor had a female concubine
If the concubine dies before her partner and leaves natural children, the natural children shall nevertheless receive two ounces. We say this about the concubine who was the only one in the house of the deceased partner; otherwise, if there were several women whom the deceased had in concubinage

However, if the concubine died before her concubine and left natural children, the natural children will still receive two ounces. However, we are talking about the concubine who was alone in the house of the deceased concubine; otherwise, if the deceased had several women in concubinage.
Reference
***********
On the Donation of Constantine, falsely attributed and falsified 1440
Frequent occurrence of the word concubitor
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla_Donazione_di_Costantino_falsamente_attribuita_e_falsificata
***********
Commentary on the work of Lorenzo Valla entitled On the Falsity of the So-Called Donation of Constantine (Latin title: De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio). Year 1440

observing that a concubitor is one who keeps a concubine with him, he wondered if the emperor also wanted to arrange a service of prostitutes.

When he noticed that a concubitor was someone who kept a concubine close to him, he wondered if the emperor also wanted to establish a service of prostitutes.
Reference
***********
***********
Egidio Forcellini (1688 – 1768)
Heterosexual concubitor. A quote from the Roman comedy writer Plautus from the play Cistellaria (The Casket). Author and work: The author is the Roman playwright Titus Maccius Plautus . Most researchers date its introduction to the period between 204 – 201 BC (some estimates go as far back as 209 BC). Accidental love from which children were conceived.

The author of this commentary on Plautus' work, which explains the word CONVENTITIUS, is the Italian philologist: Egidio Forcellini (1688 – 1768)

CONVENTITIUS: It was said of a casual and fortuitous love affair .

 "...both I and your mother were harlots: she bore you, I bore her"
 I have educated myself from the _conventual_ fathers."
 —Plautus. _Cist._ I, I, 40 sqq.

https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Pagina:Glossarium_Eroticum
***********
Concubitor, oris, he that medleth with a womanne.

A roommate, according to the mouth, is someone who gets involved with a woman.
https://leme.library.utoronto.ca/plainText/lexicon0053.txt
***********
The book was published posthumously in 1594 (although the journey itself took place in 1507).
traveler Martin von Baumgarten (Martinus à Baumgarten). Original work: Peregrinatio in Aegyptum, Arabiam, Palaestinam et Syriam (Journey to Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Syria).

We publicly and highly commend that most holy man whom we saw in that place, that he is a holy, divine man, and of outstanding integrity; because he was never with women or boys, but only with female donkeys and mules.

Moreover, the saint we saw in that place was publicly praised as a holy man, divine and exceptional in his integrity, because he was never a concubine of women or boys, but only of donkeys and mules.
Reference
**
because he was never with women or boys, but only with female donkeys and mules.

because he was never a concubine of women or children, but only of donkeys and mules.
Reference

The cultural background of Paul's letters. Child slavery and child gay prostitution were widespread in the Roman Empire.

AI Analysis
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CVTd-tYnO3-r6Id8xm6_uppXgmPao5i5wjL2aYhM3JE/

Bisexual culture in ancient Greece and Rome. Understanding the cultural context from the time of the writing of the Bible

Homosexual behavior in ancient Greece and Rome was so extremely widespread that if the church leader/apostle of the time wanted to completely ban it, he would have had to excommunicate perhaps half of the believers, which was not realistic; he would not have had many people left in the church community. Various homophobic interpretations of the Bible come from poorly educated theologians who do not know the historical context.

Love or desire between men is a very common theme in Roman literature. In the preserved works of Roman poets, poems addressed to boys are as common as those addressed to women. This literary normalization of same-sex desire testifies to its deep cultural roots.
****************************
Love or desire between males is a very frequent theme in Roman literature. In the estimation of Amy Richlin , out of the poems preserved to this day, those addressed by men to boys are as common as those addressed to women. [20]

Love or desire between men is a very common theme in Roman literature. According to Amy Richlin, of the poems that have survived to this day, those that men addressed to boys are as common as those addressed to women. [20]
****************************
in Pompeii, shows a series of sixteen sex scenes, three of which display homoerotic acts: a bisexual threesome with two men and a woman, intercourse by a female couple using a strap-on, and a foursome with two men and two women participating in homosexual anal sex, heterosexual fellatio , and homosexual cunnilingus .

In Pompeii, it depicts a series of sixteen sexual scenes, three of which depict homoerotic acts: a bisexual threesome with two men and a woman, sexual intercourse of a female couple using a strap-on, and a foursome with two men and two women who participate in homosexual anal sex, heterosexual oral sex , and homosexual oral sex .
*****************************
Several other Roman writers, however, expressed a bias in favor of males when sex or companionship with males and females were compared, including Juvenal , Lucian , Strato , [47] and the poet Martial , who often derided women as sexual partners and celebrated the charms of pueri . [48] In literature of the Imperial period , the Satyricon of Petronius is so permeated with the culture of male–male sex that in 18th-century European literary circles, his name became "a byword for homosexuality". [49 ]

However, several other Roman authors expressed bias in favor of men when comparing the sexes or the society of men and women, including Juvenal , Lucian , Strabo, and others . [47] and the poet Martial , who often ridiculed women as sexual partners and celebrated the charm of pueri . [48] In the literature of the imperial period , Petronius' Satyricon is so permeated with the culture of male sex that in European literary circles of the 18th century his name became "synonymous with homosexuality. " [49]
*****************************
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Homoerotic_literature_and_art
*****************************
Roman historian Suetonius on homosexuality
The strongest indirect evidence of the prevalence of same-sex experiences comes from the historian Suetonius . He (although it could have been an attack on his personality) wrote that Emperor Claudius was the only man in Roman history "who was obsessed with women, nor did he have a single experience with a man."
Suetonius, in his work The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, suggests that Emperor Claudius was exceptional in that he had exclusively heterosexual experiences. This description is often interpreted as indirect evidence that same-sex relationships were common in Rome, as Claudius is portrayed as the only exception.

The context of Suetonius' claim
Suetonius (c. 70–130 AD) was a Roman historian who wrote biographies of the emperors in the work De vita Caesarum (The Lives of the Twelve Caesars).
In the biography of Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD), Suetonius notes that Claudius was "obsessed with women" and allegedly never had experience with a man.
This detail is interesting because Suetonius often describes the sexual excesses of emperors (e.g. Caligula or Nero), and Claudius is presented here as a contrast.

Why is this considered indirect evidence?

• Norm in Rome: In Roman society, there was no category of "homosexual" vs. "heterosexual" in the modern sense. Rather, a distinction was made between an active (dominant) and a passive (submissive) role.
• The prevalence of same-sex relationships: Historical sources (literary, legal, artistic) show that relationships between men were widespread, although socially regulated.
• Claudius as an exception: If Suetonius emphasizes that Claudius never had experience with a man, he indirectly suggests that such experience was common among other men – including emperors.

Understanding Prehistoric Bisexual Culture from the Perspective of Psychology and Demography

The fact is that bisexual culture was significantly widespread across the entire planet in the vast majority of nations and only disappeared after Christianity became the globally dominant religion. Bisexual culture is well documented not only in ancient Rome and Greece, but also in ancient Japan, China, North America, South America, Peru, and many other countries. For more information, just enter the correct terms into the English Wikipedia.
What contemporary culture considers absolutely bizarre was the norm in the past.
The founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud, spoke of innate bisexuality. There is certainly a grain of truth in his theory.
Homosexual behavior is also common in prisons, even among heterosexuals, as prisoners are forced into it by circumstances – the unavailability of women.
Strong cultural circumstances could have voluntarily inspired, and in other cases forced, demographically significant percentages of the population into homosexual behavior. This was clearly a multiple of the notorious 4 percent.
Homosexuality was probably also perceived as a form of contraception in prehistoric times.
The Bible is also rich in bisexuality – the relationship between David and Jonathan, the apocryphal gospels say that Jesus had a lover, which at that time was not condemned or controversial at all, as it is today.

Hermeneutics and Philology: The Correct Interpretation of Malakoi and Arsenokoites

Hermeneutics is a branch of theology that deals with how the original author intended a given biblical text in the context of the time. Hermeneutics should correctly be a purely scientific discipline that functions purely on reason, independent of faith. However, the Catholic Church violates this rule.
More open theologians, who are open to reason and are not religious fanatics, often point out that in the period of the apostle Paul's life, not only did the word homosexuality not exist, but the perception of same-sex love was also perceived completely differently than today. In the letter to the Romans, Paul criticizes gay and eunuch orgies as part of rituals in pagan temples.
During the period when the Bible was written, gay prostitution or pederasty was so widespread that it was a significant sociological phenomenon.
At that time, the Roman Empire had a bisexual culture where a demographically high percentage of the population engaged in homosexual behavior. At that time, no demographic studies were done, but a rough estimate of 10-20% of people in the Roman Empire exhibited homosexual behavior at least at certain periods of their lives.
Most Christian churches today have been reduced to cultural wars. It is not about whether we side with conservative or liberal theologians, it is not about whether we side with conservatives or liberals, but it is about whether the current modern church is open to science, whether it is open to knowledge. Specifically, it concerns the scientific disciplines of hermeneutics and history. Christians of today can decide whether they will be blind religious fanatics/fundamentalists full of homophobia and prejudice, or whether they will reject or accept scientific knowledge.
The Catholic Church has not learned from its history of persecuting science and scientists such as Nicolaus Copernicus and Giordano Bruno, and it still remains in its obscurantism in the area of homosexuality, refusing to accept the knowledge of the scientific field of hermeneutics .
Hermeneutics and philology are fields of study where a conservative Christian, a liberal Christian, an atheist, and an agnostic must reach the same conclusion. However, religious fanaticism can be an obstacle to scientific research and the use of reason.

Wycliffe's translation 1382

The oldest English translation of the Bible, the Wycliffe translation of 1382, beautifully shows how the Bible gradually evolved. There are no clear passages that speak of homosexuality or its prohibition.
The passage from the book of Leviticus rather suggests marital infidelity, or a threesome.
The unclear texts gradually evolved into translations that more and more clearly condemned homosexuality.
In the verses mentioned, no one would have thought that the topic could be homosexuality.
Note: There are other translations of the Bible that are called the Wycliffe translation. In fact, these are translations by his students.

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a man through the lechery of a woman, for it is an abomination.
Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man, by the lust of a woman, each of them has wrought an unlawful thing, they shall die by death; their blood be on them.
If a man sleeps with a man, by lechery of a woman, ever either has wrought an unlawful thing, die they by death; their blood be on them.

1 Corinthians 6:9
nor fornicators, nor those who commit lewdness with men, nor thieves, nor avaricious men, nor those full of drunkenness, nor cursers, nor robbers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:10
to that which does not let lechery with men, losingsmongers and forsworn, and if any other thing is contrary to the wholesome teaching,

https://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Wycliffe
https://www.studylight.org/bible/eng/wyc.html

Cultural wars. The Catholic Church strongly supported transgender people in the past. Today, it fights against them.

The church is very active in opposing "transgender ideology". However, the church supported gender ideology in the past. It's interesting how Christians don't know their own history. Many Christians would be terrified of their own history. In the past, the church used choirs of eunuchs for church ceremonies. The church thus produced effeminate men, a third gender, non-binary people.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/eunuch
https://www.britannica.com/art/castrato
The Encyclopedia Britannica is considered a reliable source of information that can be cited in diploma and rigorous theses.
********
Catholic Christians contradict themselves and do not know the history of their church. While today Catholic Christians claim that they are very bothered by the third gender (non-binary gender) to the extent that they amended the constitution, on the contrary, the Catholic Church in the past strongly promoted the non-binary gender. A very important part of Catholic culture were castrati / eunuchs in churches. The Catholic Church in the past was the main promoter of "gender ideology", against which Catholic Christians are fighting today.
The English Wikipedia states the following:
The involvement of the Catholic Church in the phenomenon of castrati has long been controversial, and recently there have been calls for it to officially apologize for its role. As early as 1748, Pope Benedict XIV tried to ban castrati in churches, but their popularity was so high at the time that he realized it could lead to a drastic decline in church attendance.
To make matters worse, the Bible also mentions an Ethiopian eunuch in a very positive context, whom Philip converted to the faith and baptized. Acts of the Apostles 8:27–39

Schism of churches in the USA due to cultural wars

While all churches in Slovakia have a conservative orientation, the situation in the USA is better, and at least some discussions are taking place there between liberal and conservative theology.

In recent years, there has been a schism in the Methodist Church in the USA due to differing views on cultural wars. Liberal vs. conservative wing.
The church that has been most talked about in recent years (especially 2019–2023) is the United Methodist Church (UMC) .

1. Methodist Church
This is the United Methodist Church (UMC) , which was the second largest Protestant denomination in the USA. As a result of long-standing disputes over the ordination of clergy from the LGBT community and the marriage of same-sex couples, a formal split occurred.

• The conservative wing that left founded a new denomination called the Global Methodist Church (GMC) .

2. Was it several larger churches, not just one?
Although in recent years (2020–2024) the Methodist schism has been by far the largest and most visible , this process has been going on in the USA as part of the "cultural wars" for a longer time and has affected several denominations:

• Presbyterian Church (PCUSA): It had already experienced a similar departure of conservative congregations (e.g., ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians was formed), but smaller departures continue.

• Episcopal Church (Anglicans): It also underwent a major schism in recent decades (the creation of the Anglican Church in North America ), which is a process very similar to the Methodist one.

However, the Methodist schism is unique in its massive scale in a short period of time (thousands of churches within 2-3 years).

3. What percentage of pastors and congregations have switched to the other side?
The numbers primarily concern the USA, where the conflict is most acute:

• Congregations (Churches): Approximately 25% of all Methodist congregations in the USA have left.

• Specifically, this means that approximately 7,600 congregations (out of a total of approximately 30,000) officially left the UMC by the end of 2023, when the special clause allowing them to leave with their property expired.

• Pastors (Clergy): The percentage of departing pastors is slightly lower than the percentage of congregations, estimated to be somewhere between 15% and 20% .

• The reason is that in some cases the congregation voted to leave, but the pastor decided to remain faithful to the original church (UMC) and did not go with them.

• The new conservative Global Methodist Church states that it already has more than 4,000 pastors .

This event is considered the biggest church schism in the USA since the Civil War.