http://www.thenivbible.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/We-Still-Dont-Get-It.pdf To suggest in our discussion of translations among a general audience that “word-for-word” is a virtue is to mislead people about the nature of language and translation. at the same time, the fact that translations transfer meaning, not words, makes clear that it is foolish to claim that the doctrine of inspiration entails a “word-for-word” translation approach. Such a claim effectively removes the inspiration from those many words and forms that cannot be carried over More importantly, it badly misunderstands the doctrine itself. Plenary inspiration claims that every word of the original text was inspired by God: and this is why CBT labors over every single word of the original texts, working hard to determine how each of those words contributes to what the text is saying. And yet... We still write about and talk about the “literal” meaning of a word. To be sure, probably most modern linguists hold to some form of the view called monosemy: that is, that words have a basic sense of some kind. But this “basic” sense is often an abstract concept that cannot be expressed in a single English word or phrase. Linguists note that “literal” itself has a range of meaning in the literature, denoting everything from the "original" meaning to “most usual” meaning to “logically basic" meaning. the “original” meaning of a word has little to do with its meaning in a given context.