Satan has always been the number one opponent of the inspired Word of God! From the moment he dared to add the word not to God’s Word in Genesis 3:4, until the present, he has sought to vilify the Word of God through any means. He even attacks the authority of the Word of God in versions and perversions, by means of footnotes, alternate readings, and appendixes. For multiplied centuries after the formation of manmade denominations, the overwhelming majority understood that baptism was essential to one’s salvation. With the passing of time Satan has convinced the vast majority of men that baptism is not essential to the subject of salvation. Mark 16:16 cannot be refuted by the religious opponents of the words of Christ Satan decided it was time to deceive!
New International Version — A footnote: [The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20].
Revised Standard Version — These words are not found in the text at all, but are relegated to a footnote with this statement: “Other texts and versions add as 16:9-20 the following passage” (16:9-20).
The Amplified Bible — A brief footnote: “Verses 9-20 not in the 2 earliest manuscripts.”
The Berkley Version – A brief footnote: [Verses 9-20, are not found in the majority of the most reliable manuscripts]
Simple English Bible — A footnote “Verses 9-20 do not appear in 2 important Greek manuscripts.”
McCord’s New Testament — Satan has even sought to deceive our own brethren. Brother Hugo McCord was a sore disappointment when he failed to correctly translate monogenes as meaning, “only begotten” (cf. John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; I John 4:9). Also, Brother McCord enclosed Mark 16:9-20 in brackets. He does devote pages 516-518 in the appendix to a detailed study of the controversy — He does conclude, “verses 9-20 are the only possible candidate to be the end of Mark.” Why leave the question in the minds of readers by the use of brackets? Many will never read the appendix!
American Standard Version (1901) — Even here, verses 9-20 are set apart from the text by this footnote: “The 2 oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.”
This is not an exhaustive list. Did you note the misleading statements such as: “The 2 oldest Greek manuscripts…omit verses 9-20”? Friend of mine, the two oldest Greek manuscripts are not available. These mis-translators should have said the two oldest Greek manuscripts available, i.e., Aleph and B of the fourth century do not contain these verses. If you reject Mark 16:9-20 on the basis of the Vaticanus, will you be consistent and omit I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, the last half of Hebrews, and all of Revelation?
If not, why not? As to the Sinaiticus manuscript, this work contains passages that we know to be apocryphal. Will you consistently accept those apocryphal writings? If not, why not? When you look at the manuscripts and versions: 22 favor Mark 16:9-20 and only two are opposed to Mark 16:9-20! How is Satan doing? (I Peter 5:8: John 8:44; II Corinthians 4:4; 11:3). The “god of this world” is doing well!