How to reconcile the statement of some scholars that the words and meanings of the Hadith Qudsi are from Allah (Mighty and Majestic)

The student : (May Allah preserve you), how to reconcile the statement of some scholars that the words and meanings of the Hadith Qudsi are from Allah (Mighty and Majestic), with the statement of scholars that attributing speech to someone, when it is said "so-and-so said," does not necessarily mean that both the wording and the meaning are from the one to whom it is attributed, but it is sufficient that the meaning is from him, and with the variation in the wording of some Hadith Qudsi in the narrations?

The Shaykh : First: The word "does not necessarily," we accept that, but is the reverse necessary? So what is the benefit?
The student : The definition includes precision.

The Shaykh : I mean, the most that can be said is: it is permissible that this speech is not the speech of the Lord of the Worlds, that is permissible, but is it not permissible for the reverse? Okay, we need to prefer one!
The student : Shaykh, is there a preference, Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student : Is there a specific statement that reconciles these views?

The Shaykh : No, we need a preferred view, meaning from the perspective of evidence, the convincing one, not just statements. The statements will differ among us now. I want to say: If a person says, "So-and-so said," what is the original understanding? Is it the speech of so-and-so, or the speech of the narrator?
The student : The speech of the narrator.

The Shaykh : So when we allow for both possibilities, one of the allowed possibilities is stronger than the other, clear?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, even if we want to reverse this here, we need a preferred view. We have established a preferred view that the original understanding when it is said "so-and-so said" is that it is his speech. This is the original understanding. We do not depart from this original understanding except with evidence that compels us to depart from it. So where is this evidence?
The student : Shaykh, they say: "So-and-so said," "So-and-so said" does not mean the wording and the meaning!

The Shaykh : You are repeating the claim, and you are losing me the evidence!
The student : No, I mean, Shaykh, "So-and-so said," the original understanding is that it is his speech.

The Shaykh : Hmm.
The student : But his saying: it does not mean that the wording and the meaning are his!

The Shaykh: No?
The student : It is possible, meaning the meaning is his, and it is called his saying, meaning he preceded me with the meaning!
Another student: I mean, he formulated the meaning with wording from himself.
The student : With different wording?

The Shaykh : Okay, did we agree on this difference earlier, or did we not understand the apparent meaning?! When I directed the question to you, when Zayd says about 'Amr: "'Amr said," this statement includes two things: the wording and the meaning, clear? The previous question returns: What is the first thing that comes to mind when Zayd says about 'Amr: "'Amr said," is that this statement, with its wording and meaning, is from 'Amr? Or is only the meaning from 'Amr, without the wording? What is the first thing that comes to mind?
The student : They object to the first premise, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Let me: And they, may Allah bless you, stay, it is just me and you.
The student : I mean, I accepted.

The Shaykh : No problem, yes, let me, and they, you accept what you want, our talk is what you want, but do not put a stick in the wheel as they say, meaning: they, because I want to understand with you. So now I am directing the question to you based on the opinion you hold, I do not care, the important thing is understanding first, then reaching the truth second. I do not think I need to repeat the question, because it is clear, or should I repeat it?
The student : I, Shaykh, say: The statement is not the wording and the meaning, it is the statement itself!

The Shaykh : If you say: "Nasser said," should the attendees understand that he said the meaning without the wording?
The student : Yes, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Why?
The student : Because the statement does not mean the wording and the meaning.

The Shaykh : Is this the language?
The student : They mention this from the language, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : They mention this from the language, from the distinction between speech (kalam) and statement (qawl).

The Shaykh : Excuse me, did I not hear?
The student : They say: From the differences between speech (kalam) and statement (qawl).

The Shaykh : Who says, my brother?
The student : I mean, the scholars.
Another student: The linguists.
The student : I am quoting al-San'ani now, Shaykh, so that the statement, Shaykh, differs from speech in that the statement comes with the meaning!

The Shaykh : The poet said such and such, what does it mean?
The student : Also, Shaykh, the meaning.

The Shaykh : Subhan Allah!!! It is finished!