The Bible recorded David as "a man after God’s own heart" and was said to have been the greatest king of Isreal. There are many amazing stories in the Hebrew Testament about David. Among them were adventurous war stories, forbidden romance, murder scandals, truimph, grief and joy. The stories of David are told with excitement and pride from one generation to the next. However, there is one relationship in David’s life that the biblical translations seem to have changed, very vaguely and very slightly each time.

…Jonathon became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself… Jonathon took off his robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, even his sword, his bow and his belt. 1Samuel 18:1-4 (NIV)

The NIV described a union in which two became one in spirit. This union was made a covenant in which one man disrobed before the other, surrendering his military dress, exposing his vulnerability with his naked body.

Conservative Christianity says that David and Jonathon’s relationship was perfectly normal. This type of love between people of the same gender more accurately describes homosexuality than any other passage in the Bible. Conservatives become very deeply offended by this claim, refusing to accept the idea that homosexuals are capable of truly loving each other. Consequentially, the scriptures have changed.

The above passage in a newer version:

…Jonathon was deeply impressed with David –an immediate bond was forged between them. He became totally committed to David. From that point he would be David’s number-one advocate and friend… Jonathon, out of his deep love for David, made a covenant with him. He formalized it with solemn gifts: his own royal robe, and weapons –armor, sword, bow and belt. 1Samuel 18:1-4 (The Message)

Note that the description of the two being one in spirit, and the event in which Jonathon disrobed before David were left out. There are other such changes:

Then they kissed each other and wept together—but David wept the most. 1Samuel 20:41 (NIV)

Both of them were in tears as they embraced each other and said good-bye, especially David. 1Samuel 20:41 (NLT)

The kiss became an embrace. After Jonathon was killed in war David wrote a dirge:

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;
      You have been very pleasant to me;
      Your love to me was wonderful,
      Surpassing the love of women.

-2Samuel 1:26 (NKJV)

It later became:

O my dear brother Jonathan,
      I'm crushed by your death.
   Your friendship was a miracle-wonder,
      love far exceeding anything I've known—
      or ever hope to know.

-2Samuel 1:26 (The Message)

It is apparent that newer translations of the Bible have made an effort to minimize the intimacy of Jonathon and David’s relationship. But one should ask… if David and Jonathon had a strictly heterosexual relationship, what are biblical translators trying to hide?

The truth is that no one knows the details of the relationship. Anyone who claims to know speaks out of fear for the unknown.

The Greek words in question are malakoi and arsenokoitai.   Although malakoi is a common word, the other is known to have been coined by the Apostle Paul himself, since there is no historical record of it being used before this.  Biblical scholars are still debating as to what these words were meant to say.

The word malakos (singular form of malakoi) means soft or dainty.  It was also used in a derogatory manner toward men: effimate or sissies.  It seems this word was assumed to describe the passive partner in male-to-male sex.  The word arsenokoitai consists of two Greek words.  Arsen (male) and koitai (sexual intercourse).  This word was assumed to describe the active partner in male-to-male sex.  Finally, these words were put together and translated into homosexuals.

9)Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals (oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai), 10)nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1Corinthians 6:9-10(1952 RSV)

Although biblical scholars haven’t agreed on the accurate translation, my argument is that these mysterious words have been mistranslated for a number of reasons.  First, homosexuality describes one’s sexual orientation, which the Greek words don’t refer to.  Second, homosexuals are gays and lesbians, while the Greek words refer only to men.  Third, the Greek terms refer to male partners playing specific sexual roles and, since lesbianism isn’t mentioned, seems to be more a definitive idea than that of same-sex condemnation.   Fourth, at the time there was a more common Greek word used to describe homosexuals, but Paul didn’t use it. Finally, when Paul used the word arsenokoitai in 1Timothy, the other word did not accompany, demonstrating that the words possessed individual definitions, therefore shouldn’t have been assumed and translated into a single word.

9) For the law was not intended for people who do what is right. It is for people who are lawless and rebellious, who are ungodly and sinful, who consider nothing sacred and defile what is holy, who kill their father or mother or commit other murders. 10) The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders,^[a] liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching

1Timothy 1:9-10

But even as the word malakoi (the effimate) wasn’t paired with arsenokoitai (man sexual intercourse) in the above text, the translator didn’t mind assuming the word without its pair to be equivalent in definition to the word with its pair.  Clearly, this is careless translation.

If Paul wanted to condemn homosexuality, he could’ve easily used a common Greek word of the time, but instead he coined a new term.  The new term defined a specific sexual role, as the other word did also.  But why, since lesbianism wasn’t mentioned, did Paul focus on sexual roles instead of same-gender activities?  It is possible and more probable that the aspect of relationship being condemned between malakoi and arsenokoitai had nothing to do with gender, because if gender was the issue, he would’ve mentioned lesbians.

Robin Scroggs, another scholar, has theorized that malakos referred to a boy prostitute.  In ancient times, boys offered themselves to older men for money.  As they aged, they removed facial hair, styled and perfumed their hair in order to preserve their youthful looks.  Effimate is a term that would have been used as an insult.  Arsenokoitai would then refer to the man who purchased the boy’s service.  In this example we can see why specifying sexual roles would clarify the activity being condemned.  Paul’s choice of words more clearly defines this type of relationship, rather than a homosexual one.

Of course, biblical scholars have not yet concluded this matter so I can’t claim these theories as fact.  Therefore, it is unfair and dishonest for biblical translators to make assumptions out of mysteries, especially when the pieces don’t seem to fit.

 (26)Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27)In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Romans 1:26-27 (New International Version)

 First it is important to put this passage into context. 

The book of Romans was written by the apostle Paul.  It was a letter to the Christian church in Rome around the time of 58 AD/CE.  It is important to remember that the letters of Paul were often written in response to news he may have heard.  Therefore, studying them is much like listening to one side of a conversation.  We can only speculate the other. 

The verses 26 and 27 seem to condemn homosexuality.  Yet, if you read the verses preceding these, you might find the true topic Paul wrote about:

(22)Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools (23) and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

(24)Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. (25)They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Romans 1:22-25 (New International Version)

Clearly you can see that the people Paul is referring to are committing the sin of idolatry.  Idolatry is the worship of other gods.  Paul wrote this letter while he was in Corinth, a place where worship to the love goddess Aphrodite/Venus was common.  Worship included sex rituals, where heterosexuals would "abandon" their "natural" heterosexual orientation to engage in homosexual acts as worship to the goddess Aphrodite. 

Let's think about that.  Paul wrote that men abandoned natural relations with women.  Consider this, if a man has natural relations with women, would he be considered a gay man?  Do gay men have natural attractions for women?  The answer is no.  Heterosexual men naturally are attracted to women, hence they are heterosexual.  Only one who has natural attractions for the opposite sex can then abandon them.  Paul was not referring to homosexuals. 

It is simple for the heterosexual who has attractions for the opposite sex to take this for granted.  If a heterosexual engaged in homosexual activity, or even thought about it, it would seem unnatural because it is against his/her nature.  This is the behavior that Paul is describing, where one abandons the natural for the unnatural.   

I guess the appropriate question to pose would be; is homosexuality, for the homosexual, natural or is it disorder?  I found the following statement on the American Psychiatry Association website: 

APA affirms its 1973 position that homosexuality per se is not a diagnosable mental disorder. Recent publicized efforts to repathologize homosexuality by claiming that it can be cured are often guided not by rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but sometimes by religious and political forces opposed to full civil rights for gay men and lesbians.

So according to the American Psychiatry Association, homosexuality isn't a diagnosable disorder.  The APA also opposes any kind of therapy to change one's orientation, reporting that it can be psychologically damaging.  But does that make homosexuality natural?  What makes something natural?  The first definition that comes up in my reference is this:  

Natural, adj. 1) Present in or produced by nature

 Examples of things/phenomenon present in or produced by nature are reproduction, the care of offspring, killing for food, rocks, trees and dirt, etc.  Things or phenomenon found in nature can then be considered natural.  So if homosexuality is found in nature, wouldn't it be then considered natural? 

Wikipedia lists nearly 500 species of animal which display homosexuality.  The Greek philosopher Aristotle observed homosexuality in hyenas over 2,300 years ago.  Researchers report that the bonosbo, a type of chimpanzee, engages in sexual activity with both male and female as a way of social bonding.  Those are just examples; in the course of extensive research over 1500 species displayed homosexuality.  Clearly, homosexuality is found in nature.  Clearly, homosexuality can be considered natural. 

Dr. Ralph Roughton M.D. of the Emery University Psychoanalytic Institute describes homosexuality as a "natural form of sexual expression".  

In this passage we saw that Paul was condemning the sin of idolatry, where Christians began practicing Pagan sex rituals.  We saw that homosexuals have natural attractions to members of the same sex, that heterosexuals have natural attractions to the opposite sex, and that in order to abandon a natural attraction, one must first have them, hence, Paul wasn't referring to homosexuals engaging in homosexual activity, but instead heterosexuals abandoning their heterosexual nature in worship to another god.