Killing Harry for Fun and Profit

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 127964


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman"
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
> 
> Steve:
> > The Prophecy Shield-
> >
> > Next we have the Prophecy, it implies that only Harry can defeat
> > (assumed kill) Voldemort, but if we accept that, then shouldn't we
> > equally accept that only Voldemort can kill Harry? ...


> SSSusan:
> I don't think we do have reason to believe this works in both 
> directions, Steve.  While it's true that the prophecy stated that 
> neither can live while the other survives, *that* part of the 
> prophecy is not the part which speaks to who can kill whom.  
> 
> ...edited..


bboyminn replies:

But what about-

"Either MUST die at the hands of the other..."

Prohpecies by their very nature are vague and esoteric, they are not
detail scientific analysis of a future event. They are mystical
ruminations that depend totally on interpretation for their meaning.
Dumbledore interpets 'born as the seventh month dies' to mean Harry or
Neville. Dumbledore interprets the 'Dark Lord' to mean Voldemort even
though Voldemort isn't specifically mentioned. Dumbledore interprets
Voldemort attacking Harry as 'marking' Harry because he is so
obviously physically marked which combined with Voldemort's choice
seems to solidify the interpretaion. But we don't know for a fact,
that Voldemort specifically chose Potters first; they may have simply
been his first available opportunity. Further, given that 'mark' has a
broad and general meaning, we don't know for a fact that the Prophecy
won't be fullfilled when, at some future point, Voldemort declares
Neville a threat and thereby /marks/ him. Nothing is fact, it's all
interpretaion.

So if either Harry or Voldemort MUST die at the hand of the other, a
reasonable interpretation is that Harry and Voldemort can die by the
hand of NO other; meaning that only they have to power to kill each
other which in turn means that no one else can kill them. Is that
right? Well, we'll have to wait 3 years and see, but I think it is a
fair interpretaion. 

I might be of a different opinion, if it has said 'one will die at the
hand of the other', but it seems to says 'either Harry or Voldemort
*MUST* die by the hand of the other'. Of course some have interpreted
that phrase as 'either Harry or Neville must die at the hands of
Voldemort' but that's a different discussion altogether, although it
does very much re-enforce my position that the Prophecy greatly open
to interpretation.


> 
> SSSusan:
> Now *this* much I'd be willing to go along with.  ... But it 
> wouldn't be because of a belief that *only* Voldy could kill him; it 
> would be out of a fear that NO ONE will be able to kill him -- at 
> least by an AK.  Now, an *AK-47* might be another matter. ;-)
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan

bboyminn concludes:

AK-47, I like that, that's funny. 

As far as ONLY Voldy being able to kill Harry, I have implied that,
but the great mystery is that we know Harry is protected from being
killed by Voldemort AND Voldemort is protected against being killed by
Harry, yet we also know that one MUST kill the other, which again
makes the greatest question of all - HOW?

Steve/bboyminn