I have been studying the use of “Arsenokoitai” by the Apostle Paul when writing his portion of what became the New Testament (specifically I Corinthians 6:9) but I have found (expectedly) that there is massive debate with people saying completely different things as fact.
Where can I find reliable academic sources on this issue, and any Bible mistranslations for that matter, that are not so religiously biased?
Additionally, I wouldn’t be opposed to reading into some of the Christian perspective and counter arguments but I find that it is much more difficult to find secular sources on interpreting religious texts.
Sort of the seminal article that set the stone for scholarly discussion of this over the past 30 years or so was David Wright's 1984 "Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of ἀρσενοκοῑται (1 Cor. 6:9, 1 Tim. 1:10)," published in the journal Vigiliae Christianae. One of the things it really hammered home was the likely coining of this word by Paul based on the Septuagint's translation of the relevant Leviticus passages — texts that I'm sure you're aware of. It also served as a critical response to some of the "revisionistic" work of John Boswell pertaining to this and other related issues, which in general wasn't well received by other scholars. (I think there was a follow-up exchange between Wright and others in the same journal, e.g. an article by William Petersen, in the subsequent years.)
In the interim period between Wright's article and today, there have been very few further studies on this word in particular. Dale Martin has offered a rather idiosyncratic twist on some of the traditional interpretation in an essay in his Sex and the Single Savior; and there were some (AFAIK) lower-tier critical responses to this, like Jepsen's "Dale Martin's 'Arsenokoites and Malakos' Tried and Found Wanting." Around the same time, William Loader also published a ton of research on sexuality in the New Testament and early Judaism, so you may want to look toward some of his work here, too.
That being said, actually just this year, John Cook has published an article titled "μαλακοί and ἀρσενκοῖται: In Defense of Tertullian's Translation" in the journal New Testament Studies, which revisits the issue — and which can conveniently be found online here.
[Edit:] I also forgot Hollenback's "An Overlooked Backdrop to the Coining of ἀρσενοκοίτης," about ἀνδροκοιτέω.
A note on Martin’s essay—his entire approach is wrapped up in a particular historiographical method that is NOT coherent in almost any traditional/conservative/philological context. His detractors usually simply read his argument in a straightforward, philological way (because he is dealing with the meaning of words), but Martin is arguing from a perspective in which the entire sexual context of late antiquity is different from our understanding. To me that is key in understanding Martin in light of the broader controversy.
I strongly suggest x-posting this to r/AcademicBiblical .