C.S. Lewis and The Bible Codes

[PaladinValer]

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.

Yes, I did. It was ignored.

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

A little logic here: St. Clive Staples Lewis was an orthodox Anglican. He had no taste for "secular wizardry". Why the heck would he possibly sign onto tripe like Bible Codes which are loaded in Gnostic philosophy?

There are no hidden messages. There is no esoteric way to read the Holy Writ. That is Gnosticism, not Christianity. Those who believe so otherwise are Gnostics, not Christians. No hidden, secret knowledge. None. No need for some special illumination whatsoever.

Read the Church Fathers on the subject of things hidden. They had a very low view of any sort of secret, hidden knowledge necessary. Everything they needed was openly available.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Yes, I did. It was ignored.

What did you say, exactly?

A little logic here: St. Clive Staples Lewis was an orthodox Anglican. He had no taste for "secular wizardry". Why the heck would he possibly sign onto tripe like Bible Codes which are loaded in Gnostic philosophy?

Why the heck would he write

"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...predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He (Ransom) could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on the subject

(Perelandra, pg. 125, 127.)

I didn't write that, "St. Clive" did.

I'm just trying to understand it, and you're not being much help.

If you don't think Lewis meant to imply that everything (like his protagonist's name, "Ransom") has some hidden meaning, please explain what you think he was saying here (and if you say you already have, please back quote yourself and show me where.)

As for the specific example of the so-called "Bible Codes," I really don't give a fig about them.

Take tea leaves instead.

If "The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed is purely terrestrial," wouldn't that have to include the pattern of tea leaves in your strainer?

Wouldn't they have to mean something?

Wasn't the historically accidental similarity of Ransom's name to the word "ransom" designed with a hidden (esoteric) meaning, and isn't Lewis saying that everything has such a meaning when he says

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...he knew now why the old philosophers had said that there is no such thing as chance or fortune beyond the Moon...predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He (Ransom) could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on the subject

Gnostic or not, isn't St. Clive saying that everything has some esoteric meaning here?

What else could he be saying?

Did he ever say anything, anywhere that could lead you to believe he meant something else (or place what he said here in some other context)?

I started readng Perelandra, and put it aside along time ago.

I just finished reading Aquinas, and thought I was starting to understand what he said about God willing some things per se. and some things per accidens, when I decided to try and finish Perelandra and came across this strange quote.

I'm trying to understand whether Lewis really meant to cast away everything St. Thomas had to say about per se, and per accidens causality, and I'd appreciate some help from someone who's really familiar with his works.

Thank you.

 

[PaladinValer]

What did you say, exactly?

Prophecy.

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.

Why the heck would he write
(Perelandra, pg. 125, 127.)

You're misinterpreting what he's saying.

I didn't write that, "St. Clive" did.

Yes, but you are reading it, and your reading doesn't make sense based on the theology of the actual man who wrote it; a man who would have had no love for the Gnostic-type interpretation you are incorrectly getting.

In other words, the issue is your interpretation is illogical based on the premises established.

That's why I said what I did earlier: "You cannot have both p and ~p; that contradicts." and "A little logic here: St. Clive Staples Lewis was an orthodox Anglican. He had no taste for 'secular wizardry'. Why the heck would he possibly sign onto tripe like Bible Codes which are loaded in Gnostic philosophy?"

I'm just trying to understand it, and you're not being much help.

If logic like the above won't help, not to mention facts like Christianity condemned Gnosticism for the type of esotericism and hidden/secret knowledge you are incorrectly suggesting that the good Saint is implying, then I have no clue what more to say.

If you don't think Lewis meant to imply that everything (like his protagonist's name, "Ransom") has some hidden meaning, please explain what you think he was saying here (and if you say you already have, please back quote yourself and show me where.)

Asked and answered. I gave it earlier.

As for the specific example of the so-called "Bible Codes," I really don't give a fig about them.

Please recheck your own OP, since they are part of your very argument. Heck, check the title of the thread.

Take tea leaves instead.

Divination is condemned; that's what the Bible Code is essentially too anyway. End of story.

If "The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed is purely terrestrial," wouldn't that have to include the pattern of tea leaves in your strainer?

Nope, because you cannot have cake and eat it too.

Wouldn't they have to mean something?

No.

Wasn't the historically accidental similarity of Ransom's name to the word "ransom" designed with a hidden (esoteric) meaning, and isn't Lewis saying that everything has such a meaning when he says
Gnostic or not, isn't St. Clive saying that everything has some esoteric meaning here?

That's not esoteric; that's fictionalized etymology fit for the novels. Nothing secret or for the initiated-only about it.

What else could he be saying?

Answered before.

Did he ever say anything, anywhere that could lead you to believe he meant something else (or place what he said here in some other context)?

What was the purpose of the 613 laws? Jesus tells us one of them: to love God with all our body, mind, and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourself. That's what the Law was all about, and that is what the Prophets, so He tells us, were trying to get the Jews to understand. Nothing esoteric...nothing hidden; it was plain to see, and God through the prophets told them as much. The other reason? For Jesus; they were for Jesus, the only One Who could perfectly follow them. Jesus is our Torah, and He was nailed to the cross. Nothing esoteric...nothing hidden; just pure interpretation taking in all the knowledge that is open and available to each and every single one of us and putting it together as a community in a logical and prayerful way, keeping true to all that has been before.

There are no secrets...there are no hidden things...all things are plainly there. The whole bit is about the etymology of the character's name; it even says as such.

I might add that there are also the issues of God's timelessness and infinity at play: freedom with predestination are seen as something different to bare and base human perception because we are linear creatures, yet to a timeless being like God, all times are present to Him, so the ideas aren't contradictory. We understand this too, but only in a way that is limited because we are finite, not infinite like He is.

So what seems to be "accidental" truly isn't "suddenly" when we take the time to truly seek to understand what is plainly there already. We don't need special arcane knowledge; we just need to take the time and look.

 

[MichaelBurk]

So what seems to be "accidental" truly isn't

Now you sound like Lewis, and I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean everything that seems to be accidental truly isn't?

"suddenly" when we take the time to truly seek to understand what is plainly there already. We don't need special arcane knowledge; we just need to take the time and look.

I've always had three sixes in my social security number.

They're not hidden, they're plainly there.

Are they accidental, or meant to mean something?

Should I stop asking questions and just hang myself like Judas did?

If I do, was that in the cards to begin with?

Is that what St. Clive is saying?

 

[ebia]

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.

(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?
(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?

The letters on a page of English are not the result of chance - the page is designed. But that does not mean that reading the letters down the page instead of across, say, finding the occasional apparent phrase in doing so, is a legimate way of extracting meaning from the text. There is a relationship between the letters, but it exists within the correct framework of reading across the page, etc.

 

[ebia]

Now you sound like Lewis, and I don't understand what you mean.

Do you mean everything that seems to be accidental truly isn't?

I've always had three sixes in my social security number.

They're not hidden, they're plainly there.

Are they accidental, or meant to mean something?

?

They do mean something - together with the rest of the number they identify you to social security.

 

[PaladinValer]

Now you sound like Lewis, and I don't understand what you mean.

So you go ahead any suggest something that makes absolutely no logical sense as I suggested?

I'm not being rude, or attempting to be; I'm trying to get you to think logically for a moment. If St. Lewis, proven by his many other writings, is completely against fanciful codes and esotericism, why would he then suggest it in this current work? Since that doesn't make any sense, then we know we must reevaluate our interpretation of his words since they don't match with everything else.

As I said, p and ~p cannot both be true: one is true and the other is false.

Do you mean everything that seems to be accidental truly isn't?

Correct. The thing is, it is how it is intended to be used is what seems to trip you up. I will use something you said next to give an example. Please also read Ebia's reply.

I've always had three sixes in my social security number.

They're not hidden, they're plainly there.

Are they accidental, or meant to mean something?

Your number does mean something to Social Services and to many others; your SS# is what helps identify you against all others here in this country. It is your number; that is its point.

How you got those exact numbers, I don't know. What I do know is that the only way in which they actually matter is in the way they used as intended. There is no other point to them. In short, only as a set, from left to right, just like that, for the purpose of identifying who you are, is what they mean. Nothing more. No number individually or any other set or configuration of them means a thing, because it goes against the purpose of them.

Do you see your error now?

Should I stop asking questions and just hang myself like Judas did?

Melodrama really doesn't help.

If I do, was that in the cards to begin with?

There are no cards!!

Is that what St. Clive is saying?

He's saying there is nothing esoteric. There is nothing hidden. There was a reason why he was given that name. There was a reason why Jesus had His Name. Etymology, something that is openly available to all and requires no secret cabal to teach you. What seems to be an accident was predestined to be because that was the intention of it all. There was freedom to choose and the choice was made; God knew before all time and knew it, so that is how it came to be; it doesn't stop the choice of name being made, but it is the foreknowledge of that choice that allows it in the first place.

 

[MichaelBurk]

If St. Lewis, proven by his many other writings, is completely against fanciful codes and esotericism, why would he then suggest it in this current work?

If you're familiar with his works, and you can quote anything he wrote that proves he was " completely against fanciful codes and esotericism," please do so.

Etymology, something that is openly available to all and requires no secret cabal to teach you

Did you just read over what Lewis wrote?

The etymology of Ransom's name had nothing to do with the word "ransom."

His family name was derived from "Ranolf's son," and the meaning his name had had nothing to do with that open and obvious etymology available to all.

Melodrama really doesn't help

I've felt nothing but guilt, sorrow, and regret (when I could feel anything at all) since August of 2010, and I tried executing myself in June of 2011.

I was intubated, unconscious for a couple of days, and in ICU for over a week.

So if I wonder whether God might be telling me to just go and do a better job of it thru some disturbing "coincidence" there isn't any melodrama involved.

Your number does mean something to Social Services and to many others; your SS# is what helps identify you against all others here in this country. It is your number; that is its point.

How you got those exact numbers, I don't know. What I do know is that the only way in which they actually matter is in the way they used as intended. There is no other point to them. In short, only as a set, from left to right, just like that, for the purpose of identifying who you are, is what they mean. Nothing more. No number individually or any other set or configuration of them means a thing, because it goes against the purpose of them.

Do you see your error now?

Maybe.

But I'd still like to understand what C.S. Lewis meant (and I don't find your saying that he was an orthodox Anglican, and an orthodox Anglican just couldn't mean what he seems to be saying here, particularly convincing.)

What would be helpful is if you could back up your statement that Lewis can be proven by his many other writings to be "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism."

If you really know what you're talking about, could you please provide some quotes to back up that statement?

 

[MKJ]

There is a difference between saying that from Gods perspective, nothing is random; and saying that we can impose our human perception of patterns on things and they are true because everything is part of Gods pattern.

 

[PaladinValer]

If you're familiar with his works, and you can quote anything he wrote that proves he was " completely against fanciful codes and esotericism," please do so.

The entire Screwtape Letters book.

Did you just read over what Lewis wrote?

Nope.

The etymology of Ransom's name had nothing to do with the word "ransom."

His family name was derived from "Ranolf's son," and the meaning his name had had nothing to do with that open and obvious etymology available to all.

THAT'S ETYMOLOGY!

The History of words and their meanings is etymology.

Was Jesus truly named "Immanuel"? No, but that is Who He is: God with us. His very Name implies it: Yahweh saves".

I've felt nothing but guilt, sorrow, and regret (when I could feel anything at all) since August of 2010, and I tried executing myself in June of 2011.

I was intubated, unconscious for a couple of days, and in ICU for over a week.

So if I wonder whether God might be telling me to just go and do a better job of it thru some disturbing "coincidence" there isn't any melodrama involved.

Then 1) public forums aren't the place for you 2) talk with your priest 3) get in touch with a licensed psychologist.

Maybe.

Not maybe; fact. All else is conspiracy theory. Only fools are conspiracy theorists, and you are not a fool.

But I'd still like to understand what C.S. Lewis meant (and I don't find your saying that he was an orthodox Anglican, and an orthodox Anglican just couldn't mean what he seems to be saying here, particularly convincing.)

It has been given by several of us; we can't make you agree.

I cannot also make anyone understand logic; I can only provide it.

What would be helpful is if you could back up your statement that Lewis can be proven by his many other writings to be "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism."

If you really know what you're talking about, could you please provide some quotes to back up that statement?

He was against any sort of secular wizard for one thing. He is a member of a church that officially decries Gnosticism.

 

[MichaelBurk]

The entire Screwtape Letters book.

That's not a quote.

If Lewis did say anything in that book (or anywhere else) that might explain what he meant (or didn't mean) in my quote from Perelandra, would you please be so kind as to post it here?

Just one short quote from the Screwtape Letters (or anything else) showing how Lewis was "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism"?

Please?

The History of words and their meanings is etymology.

Yes, but if you read the quote from Perelandra, you'd know the meaning of the protagonist's name was given to him through personal revelation, and had nothing to do with it's history or etymology.

That's how he knew that the connection wasn't a product of his own mind, and that he was receiving revelation from an outside source.

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

So while you're right to say that etymology is the history of words and their meanings, this personal revelation the protagonist of Perelandra received had nothing to do with etymology.

THAT'S ETYMOLOGY!

No it's not.

If you bothered to read the quote from Perelandra, you'd know Ransom thing had nothing to do with etymology.

Are you sure you didn't skip over the quotes I gave you?

He was against any sort of secular wizard for one thing. He is a member of a church that officially decries Gnosticism.

Jean Dixon was a professional fortune teller, and a member of a church that officially decries such things.

Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are in favor of legalized abortion and gay marriage, and are members of the same church (Roman Catholic.)

Cardinal Ratzinger (before he was Pope Benedict the xvi) once suggested that the Eastern Orthodox view of Rome having nothing more than a primacy of honor might be correct, even though he was a high ranking member of a Church that claims much more than that.

And what about Bishop Spong?

And wasn't there an Episcopal Bishop named Pike, around the turn of the 20th century, who was heavily into spiritualism even though he was a member of a Church that officially decried such things?

I'm sorry his name escapes me at the moment, but there's even a Roman Catholic priest who doesn't believe in Papal infallibility, or the ecumenical status of Vatican I, and who's still in communion with Rome (even though he's not allowed to teach Theology in Catholic Universities any more.)

So saying that someone can't believe X, because they belong to a Church that teaches Y isn't logic.

I'm going by what Lewis wrote in print, and your crying "He was Anglican, he couldn't have believed in that."

That's not logic.

Until you quote something that supports the statement that C. S. Lewis didn't believe what he seems to be saying in my quote from Perelandra, you're not using logic at all.

You're arguing entirely from emotion.

I cannot also make anyone understand logic; I can only provide it.

But you haven't.

Again, crying "Lewis was Anglican, so he couldn't mean what he seems to be saying to you (when I doubt you even read what he said) isn't logic.

Quoting something he wrote elsewhere (perhaps in the Screwtape letters, or anywhere) to show I must be misinterpreting the passage from Perelandra might be using logic (and might be helpful), but you haven't done that (even though I've asked you to.)

I would welcome such a quote, and I again ask you to provide one.

For your convenience (and since you don't seem to have read it), I'll again provide you with my quote from Lewis.

"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...he knew now why the old philosophers had said that there is no such thing as chance or fortune beyond the Moon...predestination and freedom were apparently identical. He (Ransom) could no longer see any meaning in the many arguments he had heard on the subject

(Perelandra, pgs. 125, 127.)

He seems to be saying that there's a message in everything (even if most of them might not be discernible to a mortals here on earth.)

If that's not what he means, and I'm misinterpreting him, and he wrote something somewhere that might clarify what he wrote here (or put it in context) please provide a verifiable quote.

(I've read parts of the Screwtape Letters, didn't much care for it, and I don't feel like wading through the whole book for something that isn't there.)

Thank you.

 

[MichaelBurk]

There is a difference between saying that from Gods perspective, nothing is random; and saying that we can impose our human perception of patterns on things and they are true because everything is part of Gods pattern.

Thank you.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Can anyone quote anything Lewis wrote that would substantiate the statement that he was "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism"?

 

[PaladinValer]

I tire of this Gnosticism. Promote it elsewhere; Anglicanism decries it as heresy.

 

[MichaelBurk]

I tire of this Gnosticism. Promote it elsewhere; Anglicanism decries it as heresy.

How convenient for you.

I 'm not trying to promote anything, and I was hoping you could provide at least one quote to substantiate the statement that C.S. Lewis was "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism"?

I still hope someone who's more familiar with his works can.

Can anyone?

 

[PaladinValer]

I don't think you quite get what I'm saying...

1. This isn't up for debate. Anglicanism and Old Catholicism utterly reject this sort of secret knowledge/esotericism officially. In other words, it is unorthodox.
2. Because of 1, it is a violation of the rules to promote it here.

There is an Unorthodox Theology forum here when it is welcome.

 

[MKJ]

Look, PV, its fine if you dont want to talk about this the OP any more - just say you dont have anything else to add. But it seems lately like any time you dont like the conversation you tell people that they have to stop talking, that they are debating inappropriately, or pushing unorthodox theology, or whatever.

The OP here is not pushing unorthodox theology more than many people here in STR do - unorthodox theology does not exactally bar one from, say, being a bishop in the ACC or TEC - would we stop those people from discussion in STR who are apparently qualified to teach the faith in our church.

The OP seems to be a rather credulous person who could probably use some clear help or direction on this subject. Shutting him down does not help anyone and in any case he has as much right to post here as any of us.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Look, PV, its fine if you dont want to talk about this the OP any more - just say you dont have anything else to add. But it seems lately like any time you dont like the conversation you tell people that they have to stop talking, that they are debating inappropriately, or pushing unorthodox theology, or whatever.

The OP here is not pushing unorthodox theology more than many people here in STR do - unorthodox theology does not exactally bar one from, say, being a bishop in the ACC or TEC - would we stop those people from discussion in STR who are apparently qualified to teach the faith in our church.

The OP seems to be a rather credulous person who could probably use some clear help or direction on this subject. Shutting him down does not help anyone and in any case he has as much right to post here as any of us.

Thank you MKJ.

I don't think PV quite gets what I'm asking him.

I'm asking him for some proof that the author he refereed to as "Saint Clive" measured up to his standard of Orthodoxy.

He may be right when he says that Anglicanism and Old Catholicism utterly reject the sort of secret knowledge/esotericism that C.S. Lewis seems to be promoting in Perelandra, but he refuses to provide one quote from Lewis to prove that he didn't mean what he clearly seems to be saying on page 125.

It's completely within the realm of possibility that Lewis was unorthodox in his beliefs on this, and if he really was "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism," I would appreciate PV (you, or anyone who can) providing at least one quote to substantiate this.

 

[MKJ]

Thank you MKJ.

I don't think PV quite gets what I'm asking him.

I'm asking him for some proof that the author he refereed to as "Saint Clive" measured up to his standard of Orthodoxy.

He may be right when he says that Anglicanism and Old Catholicism utterly reject the sort of secret knowledge/esotericism that C.S. Lewis seems to be promoting in Perelandra, but he refuses to provide one quote from Lewis to prove that he didn't mean what he clearly seems to be saying on page 125.

It's completely within the realm of possibility that Lewis was unorthodox in his beliefs on this, and if he really was "completely against fanciful codes and esotericism," I would appreciate PV (you, or anyone who can) providing at least one quote to substantiate this.

Well, i cannot give you a quote, but I would agree with PV on his assessment here. I have read the bulk of Lewis work, and I am quite sure that this stuff was not his thing.

I think Lewis was talking about something rather different in the quote you have given. Remember that he recieved that information about his name as a sort of mystical revelation - he did not go looking for meanings for it beyond what it was possible for him to know.

 

[MichaelBurk]

Remember that he recieved that information about his name as a sort of mystical revelation - he did not go looking for meanings for it beyond what it was possible for him to know.

That's true, but the significance of the similarity between his name and the word for ransom was there all along.

As Lewis put it "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.)

And statements like "The whole distinction between things accidental and things designed, like the distinction between fact and myth, was purely terrestrial" would certainly seem to imply that everything has such a hidden significance until it's revealed (however unorthodox that view might be.)

BTW: The name of the Roman Catholic Priest who denies papal infallibility, and doesn't believe in the first Vatican counsel (and who last I heard was still alive, still a priest, and still in communion with Rome) is Hans Kung (and his views are certainly unorthodox from a Roman Catholic pov.)

Well, i cannot give you a quote

If Lewis wasn't saying what I think he is here, I really wish someone could give me that quote.