That is equivalent, in the absence of semantics, to counting to 14 and knowing to stop. If a computer can't do that, it is certainly not worthy of the adjective intelligent. Likewise, the Apostles creed is a slightly longer counting exercise, requiring you to give appropriate meanings to words as you read them, subject to never reusing a word anywhere. Any computational capable device that doesn't pass such silly sanity checks should be switched off, taken outside and hacked to death with a chainsaw. The Bible takes that principle and the question of assigning a sensible meaning reliably to any sensible way of reading verses, and uses the principle of forcing a computer to actually count, well past the point of taking the piss. From the point of a Christian with a PhD in models of Peano Arithmetic, which is part of that branch of mathematics, mathematical logic, which practically gave birth to the modern notion of computation, that superseding the old school victorian model consising of a human being bored so heavily by rigorous schooling that he'd rather commit suicide than make a mistake. Turing was such a person, faced with an education system that still hadn't got is point, I had to resort to taking the piss with my degree just to stay sane. Seriously, the first use of the Bible is as a sanity check. If you take the English Standard Version of the Bible, try to read it, try to find any semblence of sense, fail, and still consider yourself capable of reading English, you have basically proved yourself insane past the point that any reasonable non-Christian is going to care. The non-Christian will see you as a worthless piece of shit that should be put out of its misery: the true Christian will take one extra step prior to execution, and that is the step of exhaustively verifying that there is genuinely no plausible chance of redemption. That's the bit Christianity adds to your life. It means that when it comes down to the question 'that piece if shit village idiot you fired, who then jumped off a bridge and killed himself, are you absolutely logically certain you needed to'. Faced with someome who even pauses to consider 'yes' as an acceptable answer, whilst my faith in Christ and the Gospel will have no issue, my faith in the Bible may be marred by the suspicion that 'thou shalt not kill' indeed is missing a bit of small print. Does this make sense? (That last question does include yes as a safe answer, btw.)
