The New Testament text we read in our English Bibles is based on the original Greek text. We know this text, albeit imperfectly, through a large number of ancient manuscripts. All these manuscripts are mere copies, and the great majority of them are copies of copies, yet ultimately they all derive from the originals. In the process of copying, however, scribal errors are bound to occur. There is not a single copy wholly free from mistakes

With the exception of Sin. the oldest manuscripts are not complete. Moreover they contain scribal errors of all sorts. P46 is a case in point: it is the manuscript with the largest percentage of blunders on record!

If you are referring to an almost entire manuscript of the Gospel of Mark, then you would go to Codex Vaticanus at around 300 AD, closely followed by Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) dated at around 350 AD. [b]These however, are not quite complete as they have space allocated for missing verses at the end of Mark and then continue into Luke. [/b]In fact, in the Vaticanus manuscript, the space left for the ending is the only such space left in the entire manuscript.

Origen, writing in the 3rd century, was one of the first who remarked differences between manuscripts of texts that were eventually collected as the New Testament. He declared his preferences among variant readings. For example, in Matthew 27:16–17, he favored "Barabbas" against "Jesus Barabbas" (In Matt. Comm. ser. 121). In John 1:28, he preferred "Bethabara" over "Bethany" as the location where John was baptizing (Commentary on John VI.40 (24)). "Gergeza" was preferred over "Geraza" or "Gadara" (Commentary on John VI.40 (24) – see Matthew 8:28). At Hebrews 2:9, Origen noticed two different readings: "apart from God" and "by the grace of God".

Mill estimated the number of variations in the New Testament text at 30,000[1] based on ',  nearly 100 manuscripts , '.[2] Eberhard Nestle estimated this number as 150,000–200,000.[3] Ehrman has estimated ", between 200,000–400,000 variants [in] several million pages of manuscripts."[4]

Since 1981, Greek New Testament manuscripts have commonly been categorized into five groups.

An abbreviated list of textual variants in the New Testament is given in this article (below).

Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two of great uncial codices, representatives of the Alexandrian text-type, are considered excellent manuscript witnesses of the text of the New Testament. Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament give precedence to these two chief uncial manuscripts, and the majority of translations are based on their text. Nevertheless, there are many differences between these two manuscripts. According to Dean Burgon: "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."[1]

,  The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.[30] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9-20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.[31] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.[31]

Therefore, the Gospel of Mark may have originally ended abruptly at Mark 16:8. This has become problematic for scholars, as it is unlikely that a Christian author would have intentionally ended his gospel in such a fashion. The most common explanation is that the ending was lost. This is not uncommon with ancient scrolls due to their wearing patterns. The gospel may have been unfinished, due to death or some form of persecution. Finally Mark could have been a two volume work in the tradition of Luke-Acts, the second volume being lost or unfinished.[24][32][33] [34]

Irenaeus, c. 180, quoted from the long ending, specifically as part of Mark's gospel.[35] The 3rd-century theologian Origen of Alexandria quoted the resurrection stories in Matthew, Luke, and John but failed to quote anything after Mark 16:8, suggesting that his copy of Mark stopped there. Eusebius and Jerome both mention the majority of texts available to them omitted the longer ending.[36] ,

PA1982:

Time for a reality check on the 'incorrupt' NT.

http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
P46 is one of the earliest known scraps of a gospel. And with the largest % of mistakes.



Here's another source of information:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_Greek_manuscript_of_the_Gospel_of_Mark

My bolding.



On the subject of textual variations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament#Gospel_of_Luke


And what about differences between the two most complete early texts we have?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_codices_Sinaiticus_and_Vaticanus



And just a an historical curiosity, here's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Historical_Account_of_Two_Notable_Corruptions_of_Scripture




Now about the ending of Mark, which has puzzled scholars for over a thousand years?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OerzqA13QvIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark+earliest+manuscripts+of+the+gospels&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=firefox-a


I think this is enough to explain just why I found the smug assertions of the person in the OP's video to be quite so offensively unpalatable.

A book written by scores of men , unrelated in time. but corroborating each other , confirming mutual prophecies, repeating stories and matching expectations in future generations is a wonder and can only be divine in nature.

frosbel:

^^^^


Do you believe Jesus Christ was crucified , died and rose again ?

Or are you a Muslim who believes he was not crucified, but someone else in his stead.

If you do not believe, then you must have had to reject layers and layers of vital truths to have come to that conclusion.

And regarding  insults    If I insulted you , apologies but that was not my intention or understanding of the comments I made.

And what about his last words, what difference will that make to you since Muslims deny the son-ship of Christ , but go ahead and follow a pervert and morally depraved man called 'prophet' Muhammad.

frosbel:

^^^^


Do you believe Jesus Christ was crucified , died and rose again ?

Or are you a Muslim who believes he was not crucified, but someone else in his stead.

If you do not believe, then you must have had to reject layers and layers of vital truths to have come to that conclusion.

And regarding  insults    If I insulted you , apologies but that was not my intention or understanding of the comments I made.

And what about his last words, what difference will that make to you since Muslims deny the son-ship of Christ , but go ahead and follow a pervert and morally depraved man called 'prophet' Muhammad.

PA1982:

What on Earth are you on about?
What on Earth does it matter to you what my religious beliefs are?
Do all who question you have to be Muslims?

I'll confess I'm amused by your fixation about Muslims- do you dream about them at night?


Is there some reason why you're avoiding my question, frosbel?
What were Jesus' last words?

frosbel:


Having debated with many Muslims here and elsewhere , it does not take rocket science to decipher the the context of their questions.

You know what his words were, and you come here asking me to hear what I have to say and then go on a typical Allah rant.

I am sparing you the trouble by ignoring that silly question.

Typical Muslims and their circular, pointless arguments.

Jesus is Lord, Muhammad is false and ALLAH is a fake.

I am sorry but this is the TRUTH.

Love,

Frosbel.

MyJoe:

Oga frosbel, I think she's actually a Christian.

frosbel:

A Christian 

And asking me what were Jesus's last words, just for an irrelevant argument sake !!!

I have no time for that.

I believe in Absolutes , it is either fact of fiction, it cannot be both.

Its easier engaging atheists, Muslims etc because we all know where we stand and are coming from. 

Getting into such a debate in my opinion will get us nowhere because it appears that we  are as diametrically opposed as night and day .

You know what his words were, and you come here asking me to hear what I have to say and then go on a typical Allah rant.

Pastor AIO:


THERE ARE NO TWO CONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF JESUS' DEATH IN THE BIBLE.

Pastor AIO:

Frosbel, stop being such a bigot!  You've been asked a simple question.  Answer na!!  How is it irrelevant?
you say:
But actually she doesn't.  And neither does any christian or anybody who's read the bible for that matter.  And that includes you.  YOU DO NOT KNOW  WHAT THE LAST WORDS OF JESUS ARE  FOR ONE SIMPLE FACT.
THERE ARE NO TWO CONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF JESUS' DEATH IN THE BIBLE.

Let's stop beating around the bush with this issue.  And as for you Frosbel, you are a very disturbed individual.  Tirelessly fighting with people, chasing heresies here and there, condemning moslems, after moslems you go to catholics, From catholics it will be the turn of methodists.  I wonder what is biting you like that that you have to go on in such a deranged manner.  It can't be anything short of some form of devilment.

Frosbel, stop being such a bigot!  You've been asked a simple question.  Answer na!!  How is it irrelevant?
you say:
But actually she doesn't.  And neither does any christian or anybody who's read the bible for that matter.  And that includes you.  YOU DO NOT KNOW  WHAT THE LAST WORDS OF JESUS ARE  FOR ONE SIMPLE FACT.
[color=#990000]THERE ARE NO TWO CONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF JESUS' DEATH IN THE BIBLE.

And as for you Frosbel, you are a very disturbed individual.

Tirelessly fighting with people, chasing heresies here and there, condemning moslems, after moslems you go to catholics, From catholics it will be the turn of methodists.  I wonder what is biting you like that that you have to go on in such a deranged manner.  It can't be anything short of some form of devilment. 

frosbel:

^^^


You would imagine that I would quote on the bible to confirm what they were , but I refuse to do so for the simple reason that the question is not intended for the attainment of the truth or knowledge but to make a mockery of Christ.

Carry on grasping at straws !!

frosbel:

^^^


I have posted more edifying articles than exposing heresies on this forum, you obviously skipped them because they mean nothing to you as a matter of spiritual fact.

However I will not dance to your tune.

I am not so much worried about gaffes, after all we are all human so liable to make mistakes from time to time.

For me this is a matter of principle , subjecting myself to a band of heretics is not something I consider to be an edifying prospect.

An innocent seeker will ask, 'what must I do to be saved '.

Frosbel.

frosbel:


Truthfully,

Frosbel.