User talk:Jtm71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, Jtm71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Deiaemeth 06:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About Baedal

Gyuwon Sahwa contains the history of Baedalguk, even though the author does not used the identical name of Baedal. He used Shinshi nation. right ? There is section that describes the nation of Shinshi, Chiwoo and Goshi. This is identical with Baedalguk user:Goldwing999 02:34 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no word 'Baedalguk' in Gyuwon Sahwa. If someone insist the 'Choseon' as 'Baedal Korea', could this be accepted ...?
As long as HwandanGogi is suspected to be forged book by most of the scholars, this name can not be used generally.
And, the 'Shin-Shi' was not used as the name of nation in gyuwon-sahwa. It is the name of the Hwan-Ung.
Though these books have something in common, they are differnt. Especially about the name of nations and the ruler, and the duration of the resime. (The nation Shin-shi ruled lasted 11,000 years.) Jtm71 16:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The content about Shinshi is consistent to Baedal. I mean....the nation where Shinshi ruled over (hereafter, it will be called the nation of Shinshi) is identical with the Baedal nation because the historical content the nation of Shinshi is identical with the Baedal nation in hwangan-gogi. You may understand what i am saying.
Even though Gyuwon Sahwan does not mention the "Baedal" directly, the content about the Shinshi and Chiwoo is the records about Baedal. Right?
The era of Shinshi is beyond that of HwanGuk in Hwandangogi, but, there is no remarks about HwanGuk in Gyuwonsahwa.
Instead, it describes just Hwan-In who is the god of origin of light, and the most of the contents explains 'SamHwanOJe', which also appeared in Sagi in detail after Shin-shi's regime.
Though a part of these sentences overlap, It is not identical to the Baedalguk which lasted only about 1,500 years, and We also cannot call the 'SamhangOje(Three August Ones and Five Emperors)' in Sagi 'Beadalguk'.
If someone wants to relate Gyuwonsahwa to the Baedalguk, the description has to be exact. Jtm71 23:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think that the Shinji's nation does not corresponds to Baedal. You have no reasonable explanation about it. Moreover, the content of Gyuwon sahwa are same as the description of Baedal in Hwandan Gogi.. I am sure that you did not read the Gyuwon Sahwa and Hwandan gogi very carefully.
Hwandangogi said Baedalguk started about 5,800 years ago, and according to Gyuwonsahwa, Shinshi's rule first started about 15,000 years ago. The history should correspond to the relics. History is not just a story, but is the fact which happend long ago. The history of 11,000 does not fit to the 'Shinshi Yeokdaegi', which Hwandangogi said does exist about 1,500 years. Do you think the two are the same ... I do not agree with that. Jtm71 09:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Hwanguk and Baedal are both of mythical nations as same as Three_August_Ones_and_the_Five_Emperors of China. In Gyuwon Sahwa, it is described that the emperor of Baedal had wars with three august ones and the five emperors. Even though the exact reigh years of Baedal is not described in Gyuwon Sahwan, the historical affairs matched with Baedal nation. If you want to remove one of the history books between Gyuwon Sahwa and Hwandan Gogi, Please remove Hwandan gogi because Gyuwon Sahwa is more reliable source. Moreover, I recommend to read the Gyuwon Sahwan. You might not neither of the books.--Hairwizard91 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
That is why I think the Hwandangogi is forged book. The era shown in Gyuwonsahwa is from 15,000 B.P. ~ 4,300 B.P.
If Gyuwonsahwa should be referred, then the 'sagi' also should be referred, too.
Anyway, You do not answer my first question and do not show the sentences you described are not wrong. Jtm71 21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Because the reign year of Hwandangogi is difference from the reign year of Gyuwonsahwa, it is not right way that Hwandangogi is fabricated. It should be researched which year is correct because the reign year of Gyuwonsahwa may be wrong. I am so sure that you did not read both of the history books because the records about the Baedalguk are so similar in two books. I mean that Taeshigi태시기 in Gyuwonsahwa is so similar with Shingibongi신시본기 of Taebaeila태백일사 in Hwandangogi. Maybe, the authors of the two books made references to the same book. However, the reign year of Baedal based on Hwandangogi came from Samgeonggi삼성기, which may means that Samseonggi삼성기 may be fabricated, more specifically Chronicle of Baedal신시역대기 in Samseonggi can be fabricated. Because of reign year difference, it is not right that the entire Hwandangogi is fabricated. You must keep in mind that Hwandangogi is just a bound volume of three books.
The author of Gyuwonsahwa says the reign year in a very uncertain way, which means that the author himself even do not know. See the following quotation.
그 후 삼백여 년은 아무일 없이 단지 소호씨(少昊氏)와 더불어 싸워 이를 격파하였을 뿐이니, 단군 원년에 이르기까지 전후하여 무릇 궐천년(闕千歲)이 된다. '궐(闕)'이란 '만(萬)'을 가리키는 것이다. 요즘 아주 오래 되었음을 말할 때는 반드시 '궐천년'이라 말한다. '궐천년'이란 아마도 신시씨가 세상을 다스리기 시작한 이후로 1만 1천년이 흘렀다는 것이니, 진실로 우리나라가 가장 긴 연대를 지녔다 함이 그러한 까닭에서이다. 혹은 신시씨의 뒤로 고시씨가 치우씨와 더불어 서로 계속하여 임금이 되었으니, 그 앞뒤를 합하여 보면 1만 1백년이 되며, 게다가 단군이 다시 나라를 일으킨 것이라 말하는데, 이러한 얘기 역시 이치에 가까울 것이다. 대저, 오랜 옛적의 일은 너무 오래고 멀어서 상세하게 알 수 없을 따름이다.
其後, 三百餘年無事, 只與少昊氏戰, 破之, 以至檀君元年前後, 凡闕千歲. 闕者, 萬之稱也, 今之稱久遠者, 必曰闕千歲. 闕千歲者, 盖神市氏之御世, 至萬千歲, 寔爲我國最長年代, 故也. 或曰神市氏之後, 高矢氏與蚩尤氏, 相繼爲君, 前後合算, 爲闕百歲, 而檀君復立云, 此說亦近理. 大抵, 太古之事, 鴻荒(潤)[수闊]遠, 不可得而詳矣.
What was your first question?
In addition, what kinds of sentence do you want? I do not think I am wrong.
"You wrote, 'According to Gyuwonsahwa(and Hwandangogi), Baedal-guk (BC 3898 ∼ BC 2333) was a legendary ancient Korean empire that was established by Geo Bahl Hwan'. Can you show me where in the Gyuwonsahwa are these texts written ? If you can present the centences which are the same as you described, then I will not object your opinion, which I suppose you can't."
It was my first question. Now that, you keep insisting to include Gyuwonsahwa, then the only way without conflict is to classify the contents according to the books. But, I do think this is right. Rather, 'Beadalguk' should be included with 'Hwanguk' in 'Shinshi' era, and then the Hwandangogi and Gyuwonsahwa can be mensioned thereafter. Jtm71 08:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I see what you said. (there is no sentence about Keobalhan거발한 in Gyuwon sahwa). You mean that Baedal is also part of Hwanguk, which was governed by Shinshi.
However, the records about the wars with Heonwon (헌원) and Shinnong(신농) are found in Taesigi(태시기) of Gyuwonsahwan규원사화, and Samgseonggi삼성기 and shinshibongi신시본기 of hwandangogi한단고기 simultaneously. In Taesigi, there is not name of the states, but hwandangogi says that the name of the states is baedal state or shinshi state. How can you solve the conflict if you insist that baedal is part of hwanguk in the era of shinshi.
In addition, read Hwandangogi by Rim seungkuk. he has comment about keobalhan, and as follows

거발한(居發桓) ; 개국시조에게만 사용하는 특별한 이름으로서 신앙적 의미가 내포된 신격화된 호칭이며, 천․지․인을 하나로 정한다는 뜻의 호칭이다.


By the way, I have found that you comment about the three gojoseon. This is neither hypothesis nor myth, even though school historian do not agree. Three gojoseon is firstly suggested by Sin Chaeho신채호 in Joseon Sangosa조선상고사. I think this book is very reputable book, but i dont understand why the school historian does not agree. Perhaps it is very different what they have learned especially Gojoseon, Nangnang and Gija Joseon. If you have time, I hope you read Joseon sangosa [1] [2]

That cannot be an explanation. I asked whether the centence 'According to Gyuwonsahwa(and Hwandangogi), Baedal-guk (BC 3898 ∼ BC 2333) was a legendary ancient Korean empire that was established by Geo Bahl Hwan' is right. Anyway, the centence must be corrected not to invoke misunderstanding. The name 'Baedalguk' and 'Geobalhwan' are the names only Hwandangogi insists. Can you accept the situation in which the name of nation or the ruler called on anybody's opinion ...? Can 'Shinshi' be called 'The superman' or 'The batman' only because there is a strange book written about him ...? (And, at first, you should read the centences written at the top of this page. And the next time, I want you to write on the talk page of the 'Baedalguk'.) Jtm71 04:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About Shinshi state

Hopefully you can edit the article based on GyuwonSahwa, and this page can be moved to Shinshi's state. That may be more reasonable if Shinshi's nation can be proved as real history of Korea.

This is same sentence from Baedal's talk page--Hairwizard91 04:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
My answer will be on the 'Baedalguk' talk page. Jtm71 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that Shinsi's artcile can be made only based on Gyuwon Sahwa excluding Hwandan Gogi.--Hairwizard91 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
My answer won't be here for a while. Jtm71 05:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please make progresss about Sinsi State~~^^


[edit] Hi. I found you web page...

Is it your web page ? [3]. It is very good web, but the backgroup color is too splendid. It is hard to read the text. The theory about the temperature and establishement of new state is very exciting to me...--Hairwizard91 13:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That site is in Korean. Maybe you need to read '사서 검증' article in that site.
(Sorry for Korean comment)
규원사화의 한글위키의 내용을 보면 아시겠지만, 개인적으로는 규원사화와 그 내용이 믿을 만하다고 생각하고 있습니다. 하지만, 학계에 발표된 분명한 증거가 없는 현재로서는 있는 그대로를 적어야 하는 것이 옳다고 생각합니다. 개인의 생각이 중론과 다르다는 것을 제시할 수는 있지만, 그것이 중론인 것처럼 표시할 수는 없다는 것입니다. 위키백과가 반드시 진실만을 적어야 하는 것은 아니더라도, 최소한 다른 사람들의 반박의 글을 끌어들여 분쟁을 일으킬 글이라면 지양되어야 할 것입니다. Jtm71 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And the criticizm about hwandangogi and gyuwonsahwa need cited references such as journals and books. Wiki article cannot be cited. Please dont feel bad if you receive this message. --Hairwizard91 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Added reference. Jtm71 23:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
심오한 역사지식을 가진분께서 편집해주시니 감사합니다. 규원사화에 비판론은 제가 좀 수정했습니다. 네이버와 엠파스 글을 그대로 직역했습니다. 사학자들에게 일반적으로 받아들여지지 않는다는 말은 없습니다. 환단고기에 대한 진서론은 제가 좀 추가하겠습니다. 님과는 우리말로 하는게 편하겠어요 하하--Hairwizard91 12:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
두 사서의 학계의 평가에 대해서는 한 때 화제가 된 적이 있어서 국사편찬위원회에서 발행한 한국사의 해당 페이지(4권 53페이지) 사본을 갖고 있습니다. 앞서 설명했던 내용이 틀릴 수도 있어서 그 내용을 그대로 인용하니, 참조하시기 바랍니다. (This is from the 'Korean History 한국사' published by National Institute of Korean History.)
단군관련 기사로서 대표적인 재야사서인 환단고기, 단기고사 등의 서적은 후대의 위작이란 사실에 대부분의 학자가 동의하고 있다. 그러나, 규원사화의 경우 도가류 사서로서 조선 숙종년간의 저술로 파악하는 견해와 20세기 초의 작품이라는 견해가 병립하고 있다.
이상시, 단군실사에 대한 문헌고증, 가나출판사, 1987
조인성, 규원사화와 환단고기, 한국사 시민강좌 2, 1988
김정배 교수의 글입니다.
국사편찬위원회의 문답란에서는 한국학중앙연구원에서 제작한 민족문화대백과(아마도 ...)를 인용하고 있었습니다. 그 내용은 그대로 인용하지 못하겠지만(홈페이지의 문답란에서 규원사화로 검색하면 찾을 수 있습니다.), 규원사화는 조선 말기에 저술된 것으로, 그 내용은 설화에 기반한 것으로 설명되어 있었던 듯합니다. 위키백과에는 이 내용을 반영한 것입니다.
한국사에 제시된 두 논문을 살펴보면, 이상시의 책은 조인성의 위서론을 반박하면서, 중국사와의 비교를 통해 규원사화 단군기의 사실성을 검증하였습니다.(추천도서입니다. 책 자체가 논문입니다.) 조인성, 송호정 교수 측에서는 이에 대한 반박 없이 책이나 발표를 통해 이전의 주장을 되풀이하고 있으므로 이상시 측이 논리면에서는 우위인 듯한데, 어쨌든, 하나의 주장으로서 참고도서를 언급해 주었다는 것이 고무적일 뿐입니다. Jtm71 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you do not read the book I recommended ... Jtm71 18:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/t/m/User_talk%7EJtm71_82b3.html"