Cameras --- Sony WX220 vs A7ii --- close-up, field width, zoom in.

Out of the box --- Sony WX220 versus Sony A7iiK: Close-up, width of field, zooming in.

(Kodak Easyshare M863 --- 3280x1846 pixels, f/2.8, 1/8 sec, ISO-200, no flash, post-processed by Picassa3 pushing Fill light 50%, Highlights 50%, Shadows 25%.)

You must be kidding, right?  How could anyone possibly compare the little Sony Cyber-shot WX220 with the hulking Sony alpha 7 model ii? Well, though much larger than the WX220, the A7iiK (the K means the A7ii comes with the 28-70mm zoom Kit lens) is considered very small and light for a full-sensor (24x36mm) camera. 

The two cameras have many technical things in common: 1080HD, 4K still images, Triluminos color, AVCHD video, SDXC memory cards, HDMI output, Wi-Fi, one-touch sharing, and the Bionz-X processor.  Also, the menus are very similar, even though the A7II has half-again as many menu items.

So, how close can we shoot?  Using the the close-up mode (the flower icon automatically appears with auto-everything when you get close enough), the WX220 can easily focus at a distance of just over 1 inch.

(WX220 --- 4896x2752, f/3.3, 1/30 sec, ISO-100, no flash, 16x9 .JPG format.

At a distance of 1.5 inches, the depth of focus is just over one inch.)

But the A7iiK can’t seem to focus any closer than eight or nine inches.

(A7iiK --- 6000x3376, f/4, 1/60 sec, ISO-250, no flash, 16x9 .JPG format.

At a distance of about 9 inches, the depth of focus looks like two inches.)

 One more close-up example is this --- I wanted to see the “EURO CENT” on the coin.

(WX220 --- 4896x2752 pixels, f/3.3, 1/25 sec, ISO-800, no flash, 16x9 .JPG format.)

This is a close up of a computer screen displaying a close-up of the previous image.

(A7iiK --- 6000x3376 pixels, f/4, 1/60 sec, ISO-1600, no flash.)

How wide is the field of the picture?  The WX220 is this wide.

(WX220 --- 4896x2752, f/3.3, 1/30 sec, ISO-200, no flash, 16x9 .JPG format.)

But the A7iiK shows not quite the same width. This makes sense because the WX220 starts with a focal equivalence of 25mm (4.45mm actual) but the A7iiK lens starts with 28mm, a slightly narrower width.  Notice below that the right and left edges are shaved off just a bit. (Also, the top and bottom are cut off because of the conversion to a 16x9 format.)

(A7iiK --- 6024x4024, f/4, 1/60 sec, ISO-200, no flash, .converted to 1920x1080 .JPG format via Sony’s Playmemories Home software.)

The above conversion from .ARW to .JPG format was necessary because RAW format images (with or without AdobeRGB color space instead of the standard sRGB) often display and print with the colors washed out.  It requires post-processing conversion to recover the apparent color.  (Note: the Playmemories Home software conversion to .JPG does not give you the High resolution and maximum pixels you asked for. but it does keep/restore the color to the picture.)  Since I am not that interested in a lot of unnecessary post-processing work, I’ll happily stick to .JPG and sRGB from now on.

So, what about zooming in?  The WX220 goes from an equivalent 25mm to 250mm (actually 4.45mm to 44.5mm) for an optical zoom factor of 10x.

(WX220 --- 4896x3264, f/5.9, 1/30 sec, ISO-800, 44 mm focal length.)

But the A7iiK can only go from 28mm to 70mm, for a zoom factor of 2.5 (?).

(A7iiK --- 6024x4024, f/5.6, 70mm, 1/160 sec, ISO-500, no flash, .converted to 1616x1080 .JPG format via Sony’s Playmemories Home software.)

Zooming in is one place where we are really comparing apples to oranges (so to speak).  The much smaller sensor in the WX220 requires a narrow field to fit the sensor, so a much smaller amount of forward motion by the lens can easily cover the whole sensor with a much narrower (closer) field of view.  This is one of the great advantages of a small sensor; the optics (lenses) are so much smaller and lighter, they can be built into the camera itself, and never require changing.

Books - Muscle and a Shovel ch. 5, Ephesians out of context?

“Don’t worry about it,” he stated with smug, Pastoral confidence. “It’s taken out of context. Ephesians 2: 8-9 says that we’re saved by grace through faith, not works. Baptism is a work.” (MAAS ch. 5)

And yes, Ephesians 2:8-9 is here taken out of context. The whole context includes verse 10 as we read: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." Ephesians 2:8-10 NASU

And yes, "baptism is a work."  It is one of the very first works that "God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." There is nothing wrong with --- and everything right about --- doing good works. What is wrong is seeking to be justified by our works.  Galatians 2:16 says, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law;" NASU  And Galatians 5:4 goes on to say, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." NASU

Please notice this last verse.  It says "seeking to be justified by law." It does not say, "by the law," meaning THE LAW of Moses. In fact, looking at the Greek text, almost none of the verses in the book of Galatians which are translated as "the law" actually say "the law." In the Greek it us usually only the generic "law", not "the law."  And in this last sentence, the translators correctly say, "you who are seeking to be justified by law;" --- any law, even the New Testament when decoded into a list of commands, examples, and necessary inferences, to be justified by --- "you have fallen from grace."  Why? or Why not?  Because in seeking to be justified by law, we are seeking to justify ourselves, by our own power in keeping the Rules or Laws.  It leaves God out (almost) entirely.

“Mr. Mike,” Randall regained my attention as he landed in the book of Ephesians. “Chapter 2 verse 8 says, ‘For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.’ Verse 9 says ‘not of works, lest any man should boast,’ so you’re correct in saying that we’re saved by faith and not of works. But it is you, my friend, who is pulling this out of context.” (MAAS ch. 5)

“My friend,” Randall said, “if we try to go back to the Law of Moses, we actually fall from God’s grace, because Galatians 5: 4 says, ‘Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.’ Those Jews who became Christians at Ephesus were trying to incorporate some of the former laws of Moses like physical circumcision. They were fallen from grace and that’s why Paul emphasized not of works. He was talking about the previous works of Jewish Law.” (MAAS ch. 5)

This is wrong and not true.  Here we have Randall pulling problems and meanings out of the book of Galatians and pushing them as an interpretation into the book of Ephesians where there is no evidence that they belong.  Paul is not correcting the Ephesians for listening to the Jewish group promoting keeping the rule of Circumcision and the Law of Moses. If you read, and reread, the book of Ephesians, you will see Paul explaining how and why the Ephesians are able to live together in harmony, both Jews and Gentiles, in one body, in Jesus. There is no criticism; there is no correction; there is no condemnation in Ephesians.

In the book of Galatians however, Paul is blistering. In Gal 1:6-9 Paul writes, "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" NASU

The book of Galatians is all about how wrong it is to try to justify ourselves by keeping rules and laws, especially parts of the old law, the law of Moses, and even the covenant of Abraham (circumcision) which predates Moses.  But even so, Paul does not confuse doing good with keeping laws, for he writes in Galatians 6:9-10, "Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10 So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith." NASU

The book of Ephesians is all about how Jesus's sacrifice has torn down the wall of rules and laws, the customs, which used to be a barrier of enmity (dislike, disgust) between the law-abiding Jews and the  lawless Gentiles.  It is about how, now, in Christ, the two groups have been made into one body through the love of Jesus. Picture this --- the little green clay figure of Gumby representing the Jews, and another yellow clay figure like Gumby representing the Gentiles.  God takes the two clay figures and twists them together, molding them into a new clay figure, into one body.  We can still see different parts in green or yellow, but there is now only one figure, one body.  This is what Ephesians is telling us --- differences in culture don't matter in the body of Jesus.  The Jews are still Jews (Acts 21:20), and the Gentiles are still not-Jews (Acts 15:17-21), but both can live and worship together in one faith, in one body, in Jesus.  But they still accomodate each other's weaknesses or customs (Romans 14).

Books - Muscle and a Shovel ch. 4, Baptism now saves us?

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Peter 3: 21). (MAAS ch. 4)

Or, as the New American Standard puts it, "baptism now saves you."  But is taking that phrase out of its context really proof that it is baptism which saves us?  Is that what this scripture is really saying?  Even in the King James Version we know better.  It reads:

"18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." 1 Peter 3:18-22 KJV

Think about it. Was Noah "saved by water," as this seems to say?  Did a flood save Noah?   Even in the KJV translation we can see that Noah was not saved "by" the ability of water to save them.  Who was doing the saving?  It was God, who warned them and gave them time to build the ark, who saved them (obviously, because they obeyed Him). As the KJV says, "God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water."  But the words "by water" would have been better translated as "through water," as is done in other versions.

So, understanding that God saved Noah through the waters of the flood, or by means of the water of the flood, the phrases "corresponding to that, baptism now saves you," would imply that God is still doing the saving through the waters of baptism.  This is completely born out because Peter goes on to say, "(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" Which tells us that what saves us is not the setting-aside (putting away) of the moral depravity (filth of the flesh) --- that is, a baptism of repentance of past sins, like John's baptism, is not what saves us. But a baptism of obedience to God from, or resulting in, a good conscience, will, by the same power God used to raise Jesus from the dead, save us through baptism.  It should be clear that baptism, by itself, has no power to save anyone.  It is God, working through baptism, who forgives our sins. Baptism, by itself, does not wash away our sins.  Even Acts 22:16 which reads, "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." KJV, does not end with "wash away thy sins," but adds "calling on the name of the Lord," indicating that Saul is obeying Jesus by being baptized in His name, calling on Him (for forgiveness);  indicating that it is the power of Jesus or God doing the forgiving (Mt 9:6, Mk 11:25-26, Jn 5:25-29, Col 2:12-13, 1 Jn 1:9)

Another interesting side-note about this passage is the phrase "corresponding to that," NASU or "the like figure."KJV.  The Greek word used here is antitupon, meaning corresponding, or antitype; this is from the root words anti, against or opposite, and tupos, a die(as struck) or stamp.  So, the image we get is that baptism is the act of striking the die, leaving the image of salvation, Jesus, on our souls. As [God saved] eight souls through water, antitupon [God saves you] through baptism.

All right. Given that it is the power and grace of God which saves us, and not any power "naturally" occurring in the water of baptism, Is it at all possible for God to save someone who was not baptized into Jesus before dying?  What does the Bible say?

First of all, what about the people under the law of Moses, who lived before Christianity?

   We read in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, "For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea; 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 and all ate the same spiritual food; 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness.

   Now it explicitly says "All were baptized into Moses."  It does not say that they were baptized into Christ.  Since, according to Hebrews 3:3, Christ is so much greater than Moses, if they had been baptized into Christ, the baptism into Christ would have superseded the baptism into Moses.  But that is not what the scripture says.  Instead, it says they were all baptized into Moses. Therefore, they were not physically baptized into Christ, but into Moses.  And then it says "with most of them God was not well-pleased."  This implies that with some of them, God was well pleased, and from this we understand that some of them were saved. 

   As the writer goes on to say in Hebrews 3:17-4:3:   And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. 4:1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest ..."

   So, from this we understand that it requires the opposite of this example to please God; that is, we should not sin, we should be obedient, we should believe, we should have faith.  And some few of the children of Israel did have faith, as it is written in Hebrews chapter 11, concluding with: "39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect." 

   And what is it that was promised, that they did not receive?  Peter tells us in Acts 2:38, "38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."  The promise is that Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit to live within us.  This gift usually comes in conjunction with baptism into his name.  Since, therefore, this promise was not given to any of the Patriarchs or to those under the law of Moses according to Hebrews chapter 11, we can say with confidence that none of these Old Testament examples were physically baptized into Jesus Christ.  And yet, they are saved by faith, according to scripture.

   Secondly, what about people who have never heard of Jesus or God?

   When Paul writes in Romans 10:17-18, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have; 'Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world,'" he is quoting the first part of Psalms 19 which says (paraphrased), "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. Day to day pours forth speech, and night to night declares knowledge. There is no speech; there are no words; their voice is not heard. [yet] Their sound goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world." 

   When he writes this, he is echoing what he said in Romans 1:19-21, "because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."
NASU

   In saying this, Paul is telling us that everyone, whether or not they have the law, whether or not they have heard the gospel of the kingdom of God, the gospel of Jesus, everyone can know the basic truth about God: "Love the Lord your God ... Love your neighbor as yourself," and "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."  As he says in Romans 2:5-16, "in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God. 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus." NASU

   And in Romans 3:25, "This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;"

   And (skipping over Paul's argument that it is the children of faith, not of keeping laws, who are justified by God,) he concludes in Romans 9:14-18 by saying, "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." NASU

What shall we say to this?  Can we, who are not God, demand that God may not save someone whom we deem unworthy just because they have not participated in the symbolic death of baptism; but have only participated in the actual separation of their bodies from the possibility of sin through actual physical death?  Who are we to put ourselves in the place of God, the   judge of the living and the dead?

Finally, what does scripture say about those who have died without knowing Jesus?

When Paul writes in Philippians 2:10-11, "so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." NASU, the phrase "under the earth" is a reference to Hades (Greek), aka Sheol (Hebrew), the place of the dead.

And Peter mentions this in 1 Peter 3:18-20, "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah," NASU When he says "the spirits now in prison" he is obviously speaking of the dead, since the example he uses is of those who died during the flood in the time of Noah.

And Peter continues this thought in 1 Peter 4:5-6 when he says, "but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God." NASU

So, at judgment day, everyone, living or dead, will have heard the good news of Jesus Christ, and will have been given the choice to follow Him.  This, however, is not something everyone believes (or even has to believe, to be saved).  All of us are somewhat ignorant about life after death, often believing only in the existence of a Heaven and Hell rather than in a Paradise/Hades place where the dead await judgement. But if we accept what little the Bible says about a Hades/Sheol place where the dead are, and the allusion (not illusion) the Bible makes about Jesus, in the spirit, preaching the gospel to the dead, then we don't have to worry about those we love, who have tried to live good lives, but died without being baptized, or without knowing Jesus.  They will hear from Him themselves, free from the deceptions of this world.