Are there different versions, disputed passages, or debates about the original wording?

The Qur'an has recitation styles that were themselves revealed — not versions, not variants. Every printed Qur'an on earth contains the same chapters and the same verses.

Ordinary textual scholarship applies — Lucretius' text, for instance, is reconstructed from a handful of medieval manuscripts — but nothing hangs on the wording: no doctrine depends on any manuscript, and a corrupted line changes no one's worldview.

No disputed manuscripts — these are modern printed works with settled texts. The live disputes are about meaning: chiefly whether Huxley intended agnosticism as a bare method of inquiry or as a substantive position about God, a debate his own essays feed from both sides.

Yes, and Christian scholars document them openly: the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53–8:11) are absent from the earliest manuscripts and are bracketed in modern Bibles, and the Trinitarian wording of 1 John 5:7 is a late addition. Scholars also debate how the first three Gospels relate — most hold that Matthew and Luke drew on Mark — and the branches differ over the Old Testament deuterocanon.

Yes, and they are openly studied: the Masoretic text differs at points from the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and some Dead Sea Scrolls — Jeremiah, for example, is notably shorter in the Greek. Most variants are minor, and the Masoretic consonantal text has been remarkably stable since antiquity.

Yes: three main canons survive (Pali, Chinese, Tibetan) with overlapping but not identical contents, and the Theravada does not accept the Mahayana sutras as the Buddha's word. Scholars compare the Pali suttas with their Chinese parallels to trace the earliest shared core.

Yes, and they are openly studied: the Vedas survive in only a few of their once-many recensions (shakhas); the Mahabharata differs so much across manuscripts that scholars in Pune spent decades producing a critical edition; and suspected interpolations in texts like the Manusmriti are actively debated. Because authority is spread across a whole library, no single disputed passage carries the weight it would in a one-book religion.

Fewer than most scriptures, but some: scholars compare the early Kartarpur and Banno manuscripts; the status of the closing Ragmala is debated; and Sikhs disagree over how much of the separate Dasam Granth is genuinely Guru Gobind Singh's. The standard text of the Guru Granth Sahib itself is not in dispute.

Yes, openly and without embarrassment, since no text claims a perfect original. Jefferson's 'wall of separation' metaphor (1802) is still fought over in American courts, and the French law of 1905 has been amended many times; revision is treated as the system working, not failing.

Yes, and openly: the three manifestos differ on purpose. Manifesto I’s religious framing and socialist-leaning economics were dropped in 1973; the confident tone of II was softened in 2003. There is no dispute about wording — every draft and signature is on the public record.

The texts are modern and well documented, so there is no lost-original problem; drafts and editions sit in archives. The disputes are interpretive — what Locke's property chapter licenses, or whether Mill's On Liberty squares with his Utilitarianism — and they are fought openly in the scholarly literature.

No disputed original wordings — these are modern printed works. The notable textual dispute is over translation: the 1953 English Second Sex cut and blurred the original and was widely criticized, leading to a full retranslation in 2009.

The texts are modern publications, well preserved; the disputes are over meaning, not wording — whether Fichte's Addresses prefigure chauvinism, how far Renan's civic definition was sincere, and which thinker truly speaks for the tradition.