It's untranslatable

It would seem to follow, then, that those who have learned a second first language are the best translators. They are those who know how both traditions work and who therefore can put the terms of one into the terms of the other. Maclntyre argues, however, that while there may well be cases where translation of this or that can happen even between divergent traditions, a more significant marker of true traditioned learning is the ability to recognize when translation is impossible, when it’s impossible to say with the words of one tradition what can be said in another (even with all the extensive interpretative glosses and paraphrases that go with the most difficult cases). Precisely because the recognition of “untranslatability presents barriers around or over which no way can be discovered,” those who have learned a second first language become “inhabitants of boundary situations.” They do not blend conflicting traditions into a sort of Esperanto but instead exhibit conflict by means of reasoning on the edges of rival rationalities. Rivalry between traditions, that is, is most profoundly recognized by the fact of untranslatability.—One True Life: The Stoics and Early Christians as Rival Traditions, 203

<idle musing>
This makes loads of sense. There are many times when I'm trying to explain something from the ANE/OT/HB and the words and concepts just aren't there in our modern language. No matter how much you try, it just doesn't satisfy. It's untranslatable.
</idle musing>