I think the idea is that "the real content" will be nearest where all the translations have consensus. Aberrational translations are quickly discounted this way.

Even the single best translation will probably be worse than reading the top three best translations since translation is as much an art as a science.

So right at the beginning it says this -- you can talk about Tao, but not the eternal Tao[1].

From a philosophy perspective, it is a good idea to read different versions because there isn't really a "right way to put it". This kind of Taoism is meant to make you think and relate to the universe in a certain way.

If you're more interested in studying an authentic version of the text though, almost all of the English "translations" are inadequate and misleading. This was a book about dynastic China.

Even then, in terms of sinology, the sources from antiquity were compiled from multiple sources themselves and then underwent further revision, eg the order of Tao and Te was probably reversed at some point, the text became less regionally specific as it traveled across China, acquired different vocabulary and grammar, was appropriated by Confucians, broken up into chapters, etc. So in this sense it's interesting to read multiple translations and analysis. You won't get the full picture of Taoism from one source, because the full picture is spread all over Asia and ~2,500 years of dynastic history.

[1] John C. H. Wu's translation: https://terebess.hu/english/tao/wu.html#Kap01

Not to make it sound hopeless, but Old Chinese is lossy and thus perhaps unknowable vs any written vernacular language, because it tended to favor conciseness at the expense of ambiguity. There is no total as a bit of subjective interpretation is required.

持而盈之 for instance is "持=hold 而=yet 盈=overflow 之=[implied subject or this]" while the translator decided to add a cup, writing "Holding a cup and overfilling it." It's a great assumption as 盈 has the etymology of a vessel being filled, but still an assumption nonetheless.