C.S. Lewis and The Bible Codes

[MichaelBurk]

Most of us have heard about the Bible codes, and most of us think they're just coincidence.

But did C.S. Lewis believe in coincidence?

What was he trying to say here in the passage from Perelandra?

"It is not for nothing that you are named Ransom," said the Voice. And he knew it was no fancy of his own. He knew it for a very curious reason--because he had known for many years that his surname was not derived from ransom but from Ranolf's son. It would never have occurred thus to associate the two words. to connect the name ransome with the act of ransoming would have been for him a mere pun ... All in a moment of time he perceived that what was, to human philologists, a merely accidental resemblance of two sounds, was in truth no accident. The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed... was purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can... Before his Mother had borne him, before his ancestors had been called Ransoms, before ransom had been the name for a payment that delivers, before the world was made, all these things had so stood together in eternity that the very significance of the pattern at this point lay in their coming together in just this fashion. (Pg. 125.)

Was he saying there are no coincidences?

And if that's what he was saying, wouldn't he have been a believer in the Bible codes if he were alive today?

 

[PaladinValer]

That has nothing to do with Bible codes but prophecy and title; Immanuel is a title of Jesus, prophesized in the Old Testament, and even though Jesus' Name isn't Immanuel, He is truly Immanuel.

Bible "codes" are nothing more than modern superstition. They found, using the same techniques, codes in Moby Dick too; how then are they so sacred?

It is numerology run rampant. Avoid all teachers of it.

 

[MichaelBurk]

But if "The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed," is an earthly illusion, wouldn't that mean that there are no coincidences?

And if that's true, wouldn't any patterns found in the Bible (or Moby Dick) have to be designed (and meaningful)?

 

[Rurik]

I think that you can spend a lot of time chasing that rabbit down the hole.

 

[MichaelBurk]

I think that you can spend a lot of time chasing that rabbit down the hole.

No doubt.

But is that what Lewis was saying?

(And since he was the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century, is such a view of things part and parcel of belief in the kind of Almighty, atemporal God that Lewis believed in?)

 

[ebia]

No doubt.

But is that what Lewis was saying?

(And since he was the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century, is such a view of things part and parcel of belief in the kind of Almighty, atemporal God that Lewis believed in?)

Bible codes aren't even coincidences really. They are a case of peering hard enough for long enough at randomness until you start to see patterns that aren't really there.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Bible codes aren't even coincidences really. They are a case of peering hard enough for long enough at randomness until you start to see patterns that aren't really there.

But isn't Lewis saying that nothing is random?

That there are no accidents?

That things that appear random and accidental are just earthly illusions?

Here's that quote from Perelandra again.

""It is not for nothing that you are named Ransom,' said the Voice. And he knew it was no fancy of his own. He knew it for a very curious reason--because he had known for many years that his surname was not derived from ransom but from Ranolf's son. It would never have occurred thus to associate the two words. to connect the name ransome with the act of ransoming would have been for him a mere pun ... All in a moment of time he perceived that what was, to human philologists, a merely accidental resemblance of two sounds, was in truth no accident. The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed... was purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can... Before his Mother had borne him, before his ancestors had been called Ransoms, before ransom had been the name for a payment that delivers, before the world was made, all these things had so stood together in eternity that the very significance of the pattern at this point lay in their coming together in just this fashion." (Pg. 125.)

How else can you take it?

Isn't he saying that nothing is random?

 

[ebia]

But isn't Lewis saying that nothing is random?

That there are no accidents?

That things that appear random and accidental are just earthly illusions?

Here's that quote from Perelandra again.

""It is not for nothing that you are named Ransom,' said the Voice. And he knew it was no fancy of his own. He knew it for a very curious reason--because he had known for many years that his surname was not derived from ransom but from Ranolf's son. It would never have occurred thus to associate the two words. to connect the name ransome with the act of ransoming would have been for him a mere pun ... All in a moment of time he perceived that what was, to human philologists, a merely accidental resemblance of two sounds, was in truth no accident. The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed... was purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can... Before his Mother had borne him, before his ancestors had been called Ransoms, before ransom had been the name for a payment that delivers, before the world was made, all these things had so stood together in eternity that the very significance of the pattern at this point lay in their coming together in just this fashion." (Pg. 125.)

How else can you take it?

Isn't he saying that nothing is random?

Random is a very slippery idea, even in mathematics. But bible codes are about generating patterns. You might just as well say Tarot is a legitimate source of information.

 

[americanvet]

I have a hard enough time with what is plainly written on the pages without looking for hidden codes.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

"But isn't Lewis saying that nothing is random?"

Lewis was and is one of my favorite writers, but he was not infallible. I'm not really sure what he meant there. But if he meant that, it would be one of the times he was wrong. Lots of things are random. A certain amount of randomness is something God built into the universe.

 

[Rurik]

John Safran vs God - Bible Code - YouTube

 

[PaladinValer]

But if "The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed," is an earthly illusion, wouldn't that mean that there are no coincidences?

Since it isn't, then you have nothing to worry about.

And if that's true, wouldn't any patterns found in the Bible (or Moby Dick) have to be designed (and meaningful)?

Let me put it this way: if numerology is condemned, why would the Bible be using it?

You cannot have both p and ~p; that contradicts.

Therefore, the entire point is, you are misreading what St. Clive Staples Lewis wrote.

Bible Codes are hogwash and superstition, and superstitions are always wrong and are considered sinful. Please turn away from them and return to the whole and true faith. The Holy Bible is the Church's Book, not a book of esoteric secrets. We're Christians, not Gnostics.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Since it isn't, then you have nothing to worry about.



Let me put it this way: if numerology is condemned, why would the Bible be using it?

You cannot have both p and ~p; that contradicts.

Therefore, the entire point is, you are misreading what St. Clive Staples Lewis wrote.

Bible Codes are hogwash and superstition, and superstitions are always wrong and are considered sinful. Please turn away from them and return to the whole and true faith. The Holy Bible is the Church's Book, not a book of esoteric secrets. We're Christians, not Gnostics.

If I'm misreading what St. Clive Staples Lewis wrote, can you (or anyone) suggest what he might have actually meant?

Here are the quotes again.

"It is not for nothing that you are named Ransom," said the Voice. And he knew it was no fancy of his own. He knew it for a ver curious reason--because he had known for many years that his surname was not derived from ransom but from Ranolf's son. It would never have occurred thus to associate the two words. to connect the name ransome with the act of ransoming would have been for him a mere pun ... All in a moment of time he perceived that what was, to human philologists, a merely accidental resemblance of two sounds, was in truth no accident. The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed... was purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can... Before his Mother had borne him, before his ancestors had been called Ransoms, before ransom had been the name for a payment that delivers, before the world was made, all these things had so stood together in eternity that the very significance of the pattern at this point lay in their coming together in just this fashion.

(Perelandra, pg. 125.)

If St. Clive Staples Lewis isn't saying that the whole distinction between things accidental and designed is an earthly illusion, what is he saying?

How do you read it?

And how do you read this?

These things are no accidents. With Him there are no accidents. When He created the vegetable world He knew already what dreams the annual death and resurrection of the corn would cause to stir in pious Pagan minds, He knew already that He Himself must so die and live again and in what sense, including and far transcending the old religions of the Corn King. He would say "This is my Body." Common bread, miraculous bread, sacramental bread – these three are distinct, but not to be separated. Divine reality is like a fugue. All His acts are different, but they all rhyme or echo to one another.

(From "God in the Dock.")

It seems to me that St. Clive Staples Lewis was saying that there are no coincidences, and that there's a hidden coded meaning in everything (not just the Bible and Moby Dick, but everything we call "accident"or "coincidence.")

I don't see how he could be saying anything else in these passages, but if I'm wrong, and I am misinterpreting him, would someone please offer some other interpretation of what he means?

 

[PaladinValer]

Prophecy.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Prophecy.

Please explain how that relates to this quote.

All in a moment of time he perceived that...The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed... was purely terrestrial

(Perelandra pg. 125.)

 

[PaladinValer]

All the things done were not random but were done for a specific purpose. The Old Testament prophecies and etc weren't just for their time but were to tell us about Him Who came. We didn't realize it until He came.

 

[everbecoming2007]

I don't know what C.S. Lewis would have thought.

I think the Bible codes are BS. The same method can find them in virtually anything, including a phone book. When I hear people raving about Bible codes, it is almost always brainwashed fundamentalists (or something similar if Bible codes do not fit into the fundamentalist worldview).

 

[MichaelBurk]

All the things done were not random but were done for a specific purpose. The Old Testament prophecies and etc weren't just for their time but were to tell us about Him Who came. We didn't realize it until He came.

So when Jesus performed His first miracle at the wedding feast in Cana, there were six water jars.

When Lewis says the whole distinction between things accidental and things designed is purely terrestrial, is he saying that the precise number of six water jars was designed by God to mean something?

And if there were seven baskets of fragments left after Jesus fed the four thousand, was that designed to mean something?

And if the names of the twelve great Jewish sages, their birth dates, and the dates of their deaths can be found by skipping certain numbers of letters in Genesis, isn't Lewis saying that that was intentionally designed?

Isn't he saying that everything means something here?

"It is not for nothing that you are named Ransom," said the Voice. And he knew it was no fancy of his own. He knew it for a very curious reason--because he had known for many years that his surname was not derived from ransom but from Ranolf's son. It would never have occurred thus to associate the two words. to connect the name ransome with the act of ransoming would have been for him a mere pun ... All in a moment of time he perceived that what was, to human philologists, a merely accidental resemblance of two sounds, was in truth no accident. The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed... was purely terrestrial. The pattern is so large that within the little frame of earthly experience there appear pieces of it between which we can see no connection, and other pieces between which we can... Before his Mother had borne him, before his ancestors had been called Ransoms, before ransom had been the name for a payment that delivers, before the world was made, all these things had so stood together in eternity that the very significance of the pattern at this point lay in their coming together in just this fashion

And if he believed that, wouldn't he have been forced to conclude that the Bible codes weren't accidental?

 

[PaladinValer]

So when Jesus performed His first miracle at the wedding feast in Cana, there were six water jars.

You are missing the miracle which is the most important aspect, but if you truly must...

The water in the jars were for purification rites. He turned them into wine. Among other interpretations, it shows that He is the Master of holiness and He declares who is clean and unclean. By turning such water to wine, He gives us a sign that ritual purity isn't what God wants; He wants us to be united to Him by the New Wine...and Jesus is that Wine, for His Blood is the Blood of the New Covenant.

That's the importance of the jars of water, not the number.

When Lewis says the whole distinction between things accidental and things designed is purely terrestrial, is he saying that the precise number of six water jars was designed by God to mean something?

And if there were seven baskets of fragments left after Jesus fed the four thousand, was that designed to mean something?

If we miss the miracle and focus on only baskets and jars, what does that say about our faith? Is that faith focused on Him? Or is it on creations?

And if the names of the twelve great Jewish sages, their birth dates, and the dates of their deaths can be found by skipping certain numbers of letters in Genesis, isn't Lewis saying that that was intentionally designed?

Numerology is not an acceptable Christian belief.

Isn't he saying that everything means something here?

And if he believed that, wouldn't he have been forced to conclude that the Bible codes weren't accidental?

I think you should have a talk with your priest. You are worrying about nonsense; nonsense that the Church has, for a long time, regarded as sinful and superstitious. There are no Bible Codes, there are no secret messages. We are NOT GNOSTICS.

 

[MichaelBurk]

So why does St. Clive Staple Lewis say that "the whole distinction between things accidental and designed" is an earthly illusion (or "purely terrestrial," to use his exact words)?

You haven't even tried to explain what you think "St. Clive" meant by that.

And if he means what he seems to be saying, it would imply that every number, every similarity between words, and every apparent coincidence means something.

P.S. And if there are no accidents (as St. Clive seems to be saying) wouldn't the exact number of water jars, and the material they were made of, and the number of guests at the wedding, and the food served (in addition to the substance of water, which was turned into the wine, and which you rightly said was used for ceremonial cleansing) all have to mean something?