VA/H=Mx13+RP? Snape's Culpability?

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 147280

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
>
> > Carol responds:
> > Think about how long it takes to run (or be thrown downstairs)
> > and to Apparate. That's how long young Snape would have had to 
> > think about the Prophecy. Possibly he didn't even think about 
> > the meaning and implication of the words until he was reciting 
> > them. 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Thanks for the explanation, but I sincerely think that your 
> explanation is not supported by the canon we have at all. IMO
> of course. Yes, you said at the end that you don't think that
> Snape is stupid, but from the picture you portrayed I see not
> just stupid, but idiotic Snape. He did not realise the meaning
> of the words? Erm... does he have sufficient knowledge of 
> English? The Prophecy is ambigious, it is not that ambigious 
> that anybody could not decipher that the one with the Power to 
> destroy Dark Lord approaches, IMO.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Alla,


bboyminn:

Sorry Alla, but I think you think what you think because the books
have told you to think that. We have Dumbledore's explanation of
Voldemort's interpretation of the Prophecy, and Dumbledore to some
extent had based his own interpretation on things that have happened
after the fact. But we must look at what Snape new in the moment. He
does not have the benefit of history to look back on when trying to
understand a few vague sentences.

You said -

"...it is not that ambigious that anybody could not decipher that
 the one with the Power to destroy Dark Lord approaches, IMO."

But it is that ambiguous. I will admit that the word 'born' is used a
couple times in the Prophecy, but again, it is only after the fact
that we can take that literally. 

The Prophecy says that - 

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches . . .
born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month
dies..."

We know the one is approaching. We know his or her parents have defied
Voldemort three times. We know he/she was born in July. 

Approaching could mean taveling. Defied doesn't mean defeat or elude;
it simply means to oppose. Yes, born as the seventh month dies, but in
what year? Does it mean 'will be born' or does it mean 'was born'?

So, I contend that the Prophecy could just as easily refer to a snooty
waiter in Paris, who three times ignored Voldemort's call for service,
and later gave birth to a son who is now slowly traveling from Paris
to London (or Hogwarts). 

Again, you think you know the proper interpretation of the Prophecy
because Dumbledore explained it all to you, but if you look at it
objectively, there is virtually no way to know it refers to the
Potters and there about-to-be-born son. 

In the few minute, or at best couple of distracted hours, before Snape
reached Voldemort, I really don't think he could have worked out the
interpretation that Voldemort eventually arrived at. The truth is, we
don't even know if Voldemort got it right. He simply decided what it
meant, then acted as if his analysis was true thereby making it true.

I still say, that from Snape's perspective, in that moment, the son of
a snooty Paris waiter makes just as much sense as anything else.  

To the original part of this discussion, I don't see how anyone can
compare Snape's general transfer of information which was highly
subject to interpretation to the blantant willful unconscionable
betrayal of his close friends that Peter commited.

Once again, just trying to add some perspective.

Steve/bboyminn