What other passages are we free to ignore as non-inspired?"
Look carefully at the printed text. Most of the Bibles I own will bracket Mark 16:9 through 20 and state that the oldest mss. omit these verses. It is not me, my FRiend. I certainly don't want to ignore real Scripture. Just want to read real Scripture. Are you actually a snake handler?
Check also John 7:53 - 8:11. The so-called woman taken in sin is apparently an add-on to the real thing. I am looking at a Zondervan NIV and the margin says, "(The most reliable early manuscripts omit John 7:53 - 8:11)"
Then you go on further to deny the plain words of scripture. This is our clue that you’re no longer to be taken seriously. Conversation over. Godspeed, FRiend.
Far be it from me to deny the plain meaning of Scripture. I am simply following the argument of the writers and letting them tell us their story, the inspired (God-breathed) story, of redemption. Your system relies upon layers of men in pointy hats and bathrobes. Ours relies upon God, alone.
The conversation may be over, here. But, if God is pursuing you for your rescue, He will chase you to the ends of the earth. The Holy Spirit's wind blows where it will and no one can stop Him or resist His will. Grace to you, my FRiend.
Sure, all the Bibles I read include those footnotes as well. But do any of them say that the words are not inspired? Are the translators attempting to trick us, to see how Christian we really are, by throwing false teachings into the Bible and seeing whether we correctly reject them? You lose all credibility with posts like this one.
(and what the heck is with the multiple references to snake-handling? My father-in-law encountered snake-handling preachers in the back woods of Tennessee, and they most certainly weren’t Catholic, my FRiend)