Do subtle meanings get lost in the translating of written works?

Exactly. Unless the language into which the traslation is done belongs to the same family of languages, it is almost difficult to convey the intended meanings. This is especially true of mrtaphors, idioms and phrases. And then meanings of words, too. There is a strong cultural bias to the meanings of words in a language, that cannot be brought out fully in another language esp. if it belongs to a different language family. This happens esp. to Scriture translations that you have also referred to. I am a Hindu. All our imporatant Scriptures are in the Sanskrit language. In my early life- school days and sophomore years- I happened to read translations in English of some of our Scriptures because English hapens to be the most comfortable language for me express thoughts in due to my major portion of education having been in this language. But then I was so dissatisfied with the fare offered. I learnt Sanskrit by taking a lot of trouble and once I had the chance to savour the original I just don't feel like reading translations at all. The traslations done esp. by some British authors with deliberate and malicious intent today makes my ire rise. If only I had the power, I would simply like proscribe all British translations esp. of The Vedas. I loathe some of our own ilk who fell for this stupidity. I have always asked the Christians why did they not , unlike the Muslims and Hindus, retain the original Scriptures in the language of their origin, whether it was Armaic, Hebrew or Greek. In Hinduism the most authoritative Scriptures The Vedas are valid only in their original form and recensions. Translations are just that- just give some one a sense of direction. They are not accorded a position in worship. I like this quality of Hinduism very much.

Strangely, learning such languages may not help you as much as you think. Word use drifts over time, so much so that words cone to mean the opposite of their original meaning; egregious, for example, originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latin egregius (outstanding) but now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant. Or look at the word 'gay' this originally meant carefree, jolly, then homosexual and now means, naff or ineffectual or bad or lame. (British usage) So, to have certainty of understanding the word correctly you would have to be part of a community using the language at that time in history. So a past translation to English might be more accurate than reading the original language. Still much can be gleaned from understanding these languages provided caution is exercised. Baptism, for example, means specifically immersion, as practised by the early Church and Baptists, amongst others. all the best urban

All you need is Faith. When we try to put our own understanding to God's Word, then that is where doubt and confusion enter in. We are taught to trust in God.

Even if the translator has no agenda whatsoever, a translation can be flawed. And if the original has more than one possible meaning, which one does the translator pick? Nope I haven't tried to study the originals, no time, focus elsewhere.... Would be fascinating though. As for the truth of our existence? Most people never think about such a thing, so I wouldn't say it is necessary for most people. But I suspect that many of us start thinking about such things as we get older and start wondering what lies beyond...