Is Mark 16:9-20 Really Not In The Oldest Manuscripts

Is Mark 16:9-20 Really Not in the Oldest Manuscripts?

Creation Evidence Museum

Is Mark 16:9–20 really part of the Bible?

What about the ending of Mark’s Gospel?

Can The End Of Mark's Gospel Be Trusted?

100+ hours of research. Is the longer ending of Mark authentic?: The Mark Series pt 69 (16:9-20)

Mark 16:9-20, 11 verses are missing in earliest manuscripts. Scribes added them later-Daniel Wallace

MuslimProphets.com

The Ending of Mark - N. T. Wright

Abrahamic Faith

Bart Ehrman - Mark 16:9-20 is fake

Dr White's Perspective on the Longer Ending of Mark

Dividing Line Highlights

The Authenticity Of Mark 16:9-20

New Life Of Albany Ga.

Mark 16:9-20 (My Response to John MacArthur's Verdict)

In Mark 16:9-20, Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus do not have the long ending - Daniel Wallace

MuslimProphets.com

Is Mark 16:9-20 Authentic? | Episode 82

David K. Bernard

The Fitting End to Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20)

In Mark 16:9-20, Scribes wrote a 'longer ending' to New Testament Bible - Bart Ehrman

MuslimProphets.com

Gospel of Mark: Longer or Shorter Ending? (Is 16:9-20 Authentic?)

Matthew Everhard

Mark 16:9-20 - Grace To You vs. the Evidence

Is the ending of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-20) original? Dr. Shabir Ally

John MacArthur's False Claims About Mark 16:9-20 - Part 1

Frank Turek tells his followers: Mark (16:9-20) is fake but don't worry the bible is still reliable!