I read the verse in the 2nd chapter of Acts. The "One to be seated upon his throne" is in the margin as text in an alternative manuscript. But there is no significant alteration in meaning. The part that you have outlined is basically the same as in the NKJV. So I don't see any difference in the meaning of the text, other than just another way of saying the same thing.
As far as the reference to baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, I don't see a problem because the formula is incidental. The significance of baptism is a public demonstration that the believer is identifying himself with the death and resurrection of Christ. If I was going to baptise someone, I would follow the example that I see in the New Testament, and baptise them in the Name of Jesus. In essence, being baptised in the Name of Jesus is functionally the same as being baptised in the Names of the Father and the Holy Ghost, because Jesus is in the Father and the Father is in Jesus, and the Holy Spirit came out from Jesus. We should baptise in the Name of Jesus because God has given Jesus the Name above every other name, and He is the principal focus of our faith.
As far as the ending of Mark is concerned, I think that there is a mixture of narrative and metaphor. Speaking with new tongues is consistent with related Scriptures (obscure Scripture interpreted by clear Scripture), casting out demons is consistent with the examples given by Jesus' ministry, and that we can do the same works as He did, and this was demonstrated by Paul and the servant girl. Laying hands on the sick for healing is supported by James saying to call upon the elders of the church to lay hands on the sick.
In some sense, the handling of snakes is supported by Paul accidentally encountering a snake on Malta. Note that the encounter was accidental and not deliberate. The deliberate handling of snakes is not supported in the New Testament, so I was take the statement in Mark to be metaphor in relation to Jesus saying that we have the authority to step on snakes and scorpions, obviously referring to the spiritual enemies of the Gospel, and that we resist the devil and he has to flee from us. Drinking poison is also metaphor in my view, because false doctrine and teaching is poison to the believer. It is like rat poison, which is 99.6% good food for rats, but it is the .4% that is the poison that kills the rats dead. Therefore a toxic heresy may contain 99.6% good teaching, but that hidden .4% of heresy may be a killer to those who are drawn into it. You will find that most of the cults contain good and useful teaching about how to live a good and holy life, but there is that percentage of teaching that is fatal to one's spiritual life in Christ. A cult that might teach 90% good and useful material which we all need, but refuses to accept the divinity of Christ, can just as lead a person to hell as belonging to an New Age occult spiritualist church. There is a church that is 99.9% good and gives some great teaching about end time events and healthy eating, but has just enough legalism to deny the effectiveness of what Jesus did for us on Cross. This is what I think the reference is talking about. A genuine believer can be hoodwinked into joining a cult that teaches 99% good stuff, not knowing that there is "poison in the pot", and when the Holy Spirit shows him his error and quickly parts company with the cult, the poison does not do any damage to him.
Anyway, these are my thoughts.
How about another example Oscarr?....
I've been doing some editing in Hebrews lately,.....
36 For ye have need of patience, that
after doing the will of GOD, ye may receive the promise.
37
"For yet a little while, The-
One coming shalt arrive and will not delay.”
38
"But the righteous shall live by [My] faith,” “and if he draweth back,” “My soul hath no pleasure in him.”
39 But we are not of
those drawing back unto destruction, but of faith unto
the saving of
the soul.
In particular, I was looking at verse 38 and the different ways it was presented in the Greek manuscripts,...
Hebrews 10:38:
TEXT:
"·but my righteous-one shall live by faith"
EVIDENCE: p46 S A H* 33 1175 1739 most lat most vg one cop(north) cop(south)
TRANSLATIONS: ASV RSV NASV NIV NEB TEV ("righteous people")
RANK: C
NOTES:
"·but the righteous-one shall live by faith"
EVIDENCE: p13 Dc Hc I K P Psi 81 104 614 630 1241 1881 2495 Byz Lect two lat some vg syr(pal) some cop(north)
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASVn NIVn? ("the righteous shall")
OTHER:
"·but the righteous-one shall live by my faith"
EVIDENCE: D* two lat syr(p,h)
The OT text that this is quoting is from Habakuk,....
Hab 2:4 Behold, his soul is puffed up, it is not upright in him:
but the just shall live by his faith.
It looks like the more correct wording of this particular section would come from the later manuscripts, if the NT is to reflect the OT, like it does in the Syriac and Latin translation from the Greek. So,.... I place the early papyrus section in first, with brackets on the later section to identify it as such,...
38 "But the righteous shall live by
[My] faith,” “and if he draweth back,” “My soul
hath no pleasure in him.”
Now it's correct.
In my opinion, this is another example of how the earliest text was pruning sections out of it. I'm using the earliest possible text but correcting it in the process. No Greek text is without error, they are copies.
There are many more examples of this.
