How much theology and worldview is "lost in translations" of holy texts (all of them)?
No language translates perfectly, so how much meaning do we loose by reading translations from Hebrew, Greek, Norse, etc. Are we honestly getting the whole picture?
It depends on the text, as well as the translation.
The I Ching, for example, is written in a very ancient form of Chinese, at a time when Chinese writing was more inclined to represent concepts than actual phonetics. Most of the references were related to the Shang and Chou dynasties, which were little more than myth until just recently. And the modern reading was heavily influenced by Taoist and Confucian interpretations (often failing to differentiate between the original Chou I and the Confucian commentaries). In that case, quite a bit was lost in translation.
In the middle you have works like the Iliad. Modern translations typically get the meaning spot on, but are completely incapable of reproducing the rhythmic structure and emphasis of the original Greek.
Then you have modern editions of Aristotle that are based on the best manuscript evidence, complete with a lexicon and concordance in the back, and capable of providing a very clear and concise translation of the original.