Some theologians and scholars call into question the use of Mark 16:16 on the basis that it "...is not found in most of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts." Indeed, two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) do not include Mark 16:9-20. However, one or both of these "reliable" manuscripts also omit Genesis 1:1-46:28; 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13; Psalm 106-137; Matthew 3; 16:2-3; Luke 6:1; 22:43-44; 23:34; John 5:4-5; 8:1-11; 9:38; 19:33-34; 21:25; Acts 8:37; Romans 16:24; 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy; Titus; Philemon; Hebrews 9:8-13:25; Revelation, and much more (ie. in the gospels alone, Vaticanus leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences). Are denominationalists willing to cut these from their Bibles as well? [1]

Furthermore, these manuscripts do not agree with one another, differing in over 5,000 places in the New Testament alone. They were written in Classical Greek rather than Koine (common) Greek (which the original New Testament was written in). The Sinaiticus has at least 12,000 alterations throughout the text, made by ten different scribes. Noteworthy, Irenaeus, who lived from 120-205 A.D., wrote, "Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says, 'So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;' confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: 'The Lord saith to my Lord, sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool.'" [2]

Over 100 years before either the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus were written (mid-4th century), Irenaeus quoted Mark 16:19. How can it be said then that these are "...the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts."?

1http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vital/kjv/part1-4.html

   http://home.sprynet.com/~eastwood01/kjv03.htm

  http://carlgraham.home.mindspring.com/Bible%20Roots.htm

2Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 426.

ACTS 2:38

Using Matthew 12:41 to establish the usage of the Greek eis in Acts 2:38 is flawed. The phrases are in no way parallel, neither in the English nor the Greek.

Acts 2:38.............................eis aphesis hamartia ("...for the remission of sins...")

Matthew 12:41....................eis ho kerugma ionas ("...at the preaching of Jonah...")

Those who would make such a comparison are ignoring Matthew 26:28, which is an exact parallel in both English and Greek, in favor of Matthew 12:41. I wonder why?

Acts 2:38.............................eis aphesis hamartia ("...for the remission of sins...")

Matthew 26:28.....................eis aphesis hamartia ("...for the remission of sins...")

If Acts 2:38 teaches that we are baptized because we already have received the remission of sins, then consistency demands that Matthew 26:28 teaches that Jesus' blood was shed because we already had the remission of sins. You can't have it both ways! Which will you concede to? Baptism is unto the remission of sins, or Jesus' blood was shed because we were already saved?

Note: A. T. Robertson (Baptist; 1863-1934) asserted that the "for" of Acts 2:38 "...should be understood as 'because of', similar to its reasonable usage in Matthew 12:41." (Go figure that logic)