To have a phobia of something doesn't necessarily mean one is fearful of it, Whiteout. The suffix ''phobic' also delineates an aversion to something.

Look, none of us chose that word. You know exactly what it means

Personally, I am a bit skeptical about claims like this to begin with, because all evidence that I am aware of shows that Jewish society during that time was extremely conservative. Again, I am open to the possibility of being wrong, but this was a time where women got stoned to death for cheating or even for getting raped if they were not able to cry out for help. This was an extremely patriarchal, male-dominated society, and women were basically property and sold into marriage. They were expected to produce children because that was considered their primary function. I just have a hard time seeing homosexuality being considered acceptable in such a society, and the idea that it might have been is not congruent with mainstream Biblical scholarship. And when I say "mainstream", I am not talking about religious scholarship, but secular historical scholarship. And I say this as someone who believes that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

You are technically correct on that one. It might be possible that there has been a mistranslation somewhere along the way, but not 100 years ago. As you pointed out, the King James Version comes from the 16th century.

The Bible was written by people. It's changed in likely, every translation.

Explain then, Whiteout, how it is that the current bible is so different than earlier versions discovered in ancient libraries, the Dead Sea Scrolls and so on? You can't? That's because the bible has been continually changed and re-written by people, often to suit their own needs and desires. There's been at least 30,000 changes. Like poor Mary Magdalene, who was Jesus' strongest supporter (and possibly his wife). In 591, Pope Gregory I pronounced her as a "sinful woman", contrary to the canonical Gospels at the time. The bible has been changed. A lot.

I also want to point out that even Christians today will argue about whether this or that translation is correct, so if Christians TODAY argue about the authenticity of a particular translation, how can you possibly say that the Bible never changes or that mistranslations could not have happened in the past? Some Christians for example, won't touch any contemporary translation, and will stick with the King James. And the King James isn't even the first English translation. Ironically, it has been shown that contemporary translations are often MORE accurate, because now they can go back to older sources than were available at the time of the King James translation.

You need to familiarize yourself with the writings of the historians who have studied how the Bible has changed over time. Yours is a belief that isn't based in fact at all. These texts were copied by hand, and mistakes happened. Mistranslations, both unintentional and intentional have also happened. No book is perfect.

It does though due to languages not having words that mean what they do in other languages and so the ones transcribing use what they feel is closest. For example, it is often said Jesus was a carpenter. This isn't plausible as there were no carpenters, nor trees really, where he was. So along the way when the Bible was transcribed to some other language they chose a word they felt was close to what it actually said, regardless of if it was accurate.

By the way. since your comment above was downvoted and couldn't reply there, I am going to reply here. This is the official definition of the suffix phobic, showing that you are wrong: phobic ​SUFFIX US  /foʊbɪk/ + DEFINITIONS1 1 used for making adjectives meaning disliking or afraid of someone or something very much example: homophobic (=afraid of or disliking homosexuality)