>>22232993You mention the Tao Te Ching as if it's just a random example pulled out of a hat, but I'm fairly certain it's one of the most extreme you could've chosen because it's 4th century BC poetic/aphoristic Chinese philosophy. Not only is the grammar of ancient Chinese is very different from English, but it has words without any corresponding concept in English, so a literal word-for-word translation would just read like gibberish. So, it's trying to use concepts that are unfamiliar with English speakers arranged according to a grammar that's wildly different from English to across fairly abstract philosophical concepts in a partially poetic and metaphorical manner.
The Bible, especially the new testament, isn't nearly that difficult along every axis. And we have not one but several fairly unbroken chains of people transmitting its meaning since very early on as it quickly spread, who, though they may disagree on many details, don't disagree on the broad outlines.
