Mark 16:16 is not in the earliest manuscripts and is generally accepted to be an addition by a scribe. the actual long ending of Mark 16 is lost what you have past verse 9 is unreliable and not wholly supported by the rest of scripture.
It is in the majority text, it is in all of the manuscripts found all over the ancient Greek world, your Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) are packed full of errors, there are over 8,000 differences in the (B) and 9,000 in the (Aleph), and the Aleph was found in a garbage can in a Montessori by Constantine von Tischendorf in the mid 1800's
Not only do the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts disagree with the Majority of manuscripts, but they do not agree with each other! The 8000 changes in Vaticanus and the 9000 changes in Sinaiticus are not the same changes. When their changes are added together, they alter the Majority Text in 13,000 places. This is two changes for every verse. Together they omit 4000 words, add 2000, transpose 3500, and modify 2000.
Actually if it was a scribe, it was one of these text's that altered Mark 16:26 by removal.
If I were to base doctrine on Mark 16:16 I would consider on the parts that agree with the rest of scripture. If you do a Strongs number look up on the verse you will see that the English word baptize comes from the greek word Baptizo which indicates Holy Spirit baptism not water. Bapto is water Baptizo is Holy Spirit.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Again, you should look these things up before listening to another man or website :
907 baptizo bap-tid'-zo from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash. see GREEK for 911
911 bapto bap'-to a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):--dip.
I don't see no Holy Spirit baptism there, in fact Strong's points in favor of the water baptism.