Of course it was. Of course Christianity took a line intended to protect children from abuse and "mistranslated" it to be homophobic.

Iirc, the hebrew word that gets translated to 'lay' is also a pretty suspect translation. Its only other usage in the OT (and our only other known context for it) is to describe a man pursuing his wife's servant, and contextually, is more likely to mean 'molest' or 'rape' than to describe consensual sex.

The 2 words translated to 'man' are also different- the first being 'ish' the second being 'zachar'

While both can generally refer to anyone male, ish can be used in the context of 'anyone', or 'husband/ man of the house', whereas Zachar is often used biblically to refer to young males, and /or subordinates.

So put together, this passage is likely 'nobody should be molesting boys,' or 'a master shouldn't rape his servants or children'

A lot of scholars point out that homosexuality wasn't really a concept in the ancient world. Neither was marriage for love or anything other than a means to perpetuate genes and familial property. But what was very much a concept was machismo. Being a "bottom" (in different terms back then) was considered degrading and "womanly," and that was typically the issue at hand, according to many scholars, such as DanMcClellan, Robert Alter, and Jerome Walsh.

Unfortunately not mistranslated, but for sure another outdated thing to ignore. I heard it was probably discouraging people from joining a nearby cult thing in Egypt that had male male acts, which sounds like it was more about religious competition than homosexuality, but I'm no expert.

yeah because they cared so much

stop those disgusting apologetics