Talk:Hwandan Gogi

HwandanGogi does not fit to GwuwonSahwa

Although the Gwuwonsahwa describe the ancient Chosun(Gojoseon) 47 Kings, the era they ruled does not fit to that of HwandanGogi. It is one of the reason why the Hwandangogi is in suspicion.

In the Gwuwonsahwa, the 47 Kings of Gojoseon ruled about 1,000 years. In Hwandangogi, the same 47 kings ruled about 2,000 years, and they are all descended the position of the king from their father, and it is very unreal.

==============================================================

This book is a forgery with political motives.

Karolus 2006/8/22

Have evidence?

OK, how about Nihon Shoki then? If Hwandangogi is forgery then how is Nihon Shoki is not forgery? Just because it contains Korean POV and information that contradicts Chinese/Japanese POV?Korsentry 03:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Forgery or Retouch

Everybody must know Forgery and Retouch are different. Even authentic history books such as Samguk Sagi say wrong history because of retouch. It is problem to differentiate the retouch and forgery, and find the true history from retouched history books. For example, Samguk Sagi says that there is TWO Silla. But, none of the school historian believe there is two silla. Hwandangogi is history books that retouched portion is larger. Gyuwonsahwa has less portion of retouched history. Saying that Samguk sagi is true because samguksagi is published by government, is not the attitude of scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.151.27 (talk)

Where in the Samguk Sagi is the story about 2 Shilla ? I can not find that. Jtm71 11:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Think of Possibility ...

According to the introductory remarks in Hwandan Gogi, 5 books were compiled by Gae Yeonsu in 1911. A document of Daejong Kyo (a korean spiritual corporation) and the JeongShinCheolHakTongPyeon which published in 1919 clarifies that GaeYeonSu, the person who compiled Hwandan Gogi found the CheonBuGyeong in 1916. Then, the Cheonbu Gyeong can not be included in Taebaek Ilsa in Hwandan Gogi in 1911, because even Gyae Yeonsu himself would not know the existence of CheonBuGyeong. Maybe the assertion that Gae YeonSu compiled HwandanGogi in 1911 and found CheonBuGyeong in 1916 is true. But, to be a real, the contents of CheonBuGyeong should be compiled from 1916 ~ 1920. If they did not know the existence of CheonBuGyeong, then, all the parts of Hwandan Gogi refering the CheonByGyeong should be considered to be changed.Jtm71 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. I did not know that 천부경 was found by 계연수. Thanks.--Hairwizard91 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the article area

"* The uncertainties found in Hwandan Gogi can be explained by the fact that the existing text is a restored version, not the original."

It was moved from the article for it lacks source and is not likely to be true. [1] They assert that the original version is the same as the book which is available nowadays. Jtm71 02:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A basis ...

A basis needs inevitability. While there is no proof that the book was published before 1979, the fact that a part of contents which the book describes coincident with the historical assumption cannot support that the book keeps any real history. Jtm71 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the collection of texts in large volumes to be false or forgery, if that's case what about Nihon Shoki? Nihon Shoki contains many illogical events and information coincident with the history. Korsentry 03:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

False documents

I've removed both the see also and Category:False documents because they seem inappropriate. The category includes Category:Fictional books and Category:Mockumentaries, indicating it's more for documents that are intended to be false or satire or the like. The article's criticism has some indication it may be a hoax which is entirely different. The article seems to suggest that it's at least trying to be a text on Korean history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Explanations

This article states that one of the major reasons the Hwandan Gogi is considered suspect is because its only available manuscript dates to 1979, yet provides no reason why there should be any difference if the books were published in 1979 versus 1911 (both are contemporary, as opposed to ancient, dates). Also, there is virtually no description of the book's contents except the names of the entities it describes, which seems suspicious considering the real reason the Hwandan Gogi is rejected is because of its outlandish claims (some of which are referenced in passing in the authenticity section). Lathdrinor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Refutation against all criticisms

"Yi Gi could not have supervised the Hwandangogi which was first compiled in 1911, because he died then" There is no evidence Yi Gi could not have supervised the Hwandangogi before 1911. Compiling the Hwandangogi could have taken years to finish prior to 1911. Therefore, Yi Gi could have supervised the book in the earlier stages and died before the book was finished in 1911.

"The contents of Cheonbu Gyeong could not be included in Taebaek Ilsa before 1911 because the Cheonbu Gyeong was first discovered and known to the Daejonggyo in 1916 by Gae Yeonsu, the person who compiled Hwandan Gogi." Both documents of both Daejong Kyo and the JeongShinCheolTakTongPyeon said that Gae Yeonsu founded the CheonBuGyeong in 1916 on a stone wall in Myohyang mountain. This means that Gae Yeonsu founded a artifact of CheonBuGyeong not the existence of CheonBuGyeong. There is no evidence that it was the first time Gae Yeonsu saw the CheonBuGyeong. Gae Yeonsu already knew about the CheonBuGyeong while compiling the Taebaek Ilsa and then founded the CheonBuGyeong as an artifact on a stone wall in Myohyang mountain. There is no evidence that Gae Yeonsu himself didn't know about the existence of Cheonbugyeong. The documents never said it was the first time Gae Yeonsu discovered the CheonBuGyeong. It only says Gae Yeonsu founded the Cheonbugyeong as an artifact on a wall in 1916. In addition, it said that it was first known to the world in 1916. This means that Gae Yeonsu could have known only by himself and then decided to show it to the public in 1916.

"The 1911 edition (or any edition before 1979) has not been found. There is no proof that the book was kept by Yi Yurip and lost in 1975, and then restored by Yi Yurip before 1979." There is also no proof that Yi Yurip fabricated the Hwandangogi during the time it was lost. There is no proof that the book wasn't kept by Yi Yurip and lost in 1975, and then restored by Yi Yurip before 1979.

"Other criticisms made on a South Korean television show include unrealistic descriptions found in the texts, for example:

Hwan-guk is said to have spanned several thousand kilometers ~10,000 years ago Rulers of Baedal are said to have lived regularly for 120–150 year"

These are mere personal opinions not based on actual evidence. Just because some claims are unbelievable doesn't mean it is fake history. Rewriting History Channel (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hwandan Gogi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040817222150/http://www.land.go.kr/landinfo/lecturelandinfo/landculturelec/5/landculture_list_6_text_5_6.jsp to http://www.land.go.kr/landinfo/lecturelandinfo/landculturelec/5/landculture_list_6_text_5_6.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)