Recently I have been studying the missing verses in the ESV such as Acts 8:37. Also why the ESV does have Mark 16:9-20 in brackets and listed as not in some of the earlier manuscripts. I'm going to look at the Mark 16 reference at this time.
The Codex Sinaiticus is dated between c.330-360AD and is called a "complete" new testament, the oldest ever found. As I started trying to look into this matter of whether these verses should be considered part of the New Testament or discard them I came across a reference of Irenaeus in one of his apologist books (Against Heresies Book 3 ch. 10.5) quoting Mark 16:19. The troublesome part of this is the fact that Irenaeus died in 202AD. If the codex mentioned above were the oldest and best manuscript how is it Irenaeus is able to quote this scripture if it was added after 330-360AD by some good meaning but uninspired author? I understand that Irenaeus isn't an inspired author either, but he did quote one.
I am still of the opinion that the Textus Receptus is the better manuscript and older as shown in this case isn't particularly better. That being said I am not willing to throw away my ESV yet. I enjoy the language I'm just going to have to include Acts 8:37 and Mark 16:9-20 and some other things also that aren't found in the "complete" Codex Sinaiticus. I think we should probably stop using that word complete.