Will the Prophesy be Fulfilled?

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 171780

> In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/171679
> 
> Carol:
> Interesting theory, but it doesn't fit well with the Prophecy 
> ("either must die at the hand of the other") 
> <snip>

Mike:
You got me thinking about the Prophesy, what *has* come true, what 
*may* have came true, and whether the remainder *will* come true.

OotP p. 841, US edition. The Prophesy:
"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches..."

>From all we know right now, this part *may* have already come true. 
If Harry was indeed the one with the "power" he was approaching in a 
manner of speaking. Although he was probably very early in the 
gestation state, especially if he was conceived and the prophewsy was 
given on the same night (October 31, 1979). It's ambiguous to use the 
term "approaches" in place of to-be-born or conceived, but easily 
construed to be the same thing, imo.

"Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month 
dies..."

Dumbledore has told us that James and Lily *did* defy Voldemort 
thrice, we just don't know how. So, since Harry was born at the right 
time, this one looks to be in the *has* category. The only niggler 
here, for me, is that the first "Born" seems like past tense to me. 
But the second "born" sounds like future tense, and they have to be 
referring to the same person, don't they? Well, anyway, the last 
sentence is a repeat of the first sentence and this second clause, 
except it says "will be born". Clears it up for me. :)

"and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power 
the Dark Lord knows not..."

Another case of probably *has* occurred. Harry was certainly "mark"ed 
in both the physical and magical sense. Was he marked as his "equal", 
I guess we'll soon see? Does the fact that the "mark"ed clause comes 
before the "power...knows not" clause mean that the marking will 
*cause* Harry to acquire this power? IOW, does Voldie's attempting to 
kill Harry trigger Lily's ancient love magic and thereby cause Harry 
to gain the "power" of love? Or was Harry born with this power and 
Lily's sacrifice added a new protection? And is Lily's love 
protection temporary?

IMNSHO, Harry was born with the power of love. Nothing Voldemort did 
nor anything Lily did was required to give him that. And this fits 
the prophesy as far as the first sentence saying the "one **with** 
the power", not the one to *receive* the power. 

As to the *temporary* love protection, I'm still not understanding 
why it's temporary. Dumbledore admits he built upon it to protect 
Harry at #4 Privet, but that's DD's protection using Petunias blood. 
And just as obviously, Harry can't be hit by another AK and have it 
rebound to prove it wasn't temporary - that would give everything 
away too soon. But I digress.

"and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live 
while the other survives..."

Let the debate begin! LOL. First, let's get this "other" thing out of 
the way. Put any third name in place of "other" and the sentence 
makes no sense. Put in Neville and you have either dying via Neville 
because neither can live while Neville survives. Huh? 

There is also a faction that wants to use Harry, Tom, and LV in a 
three-part mixture for this sentence. Sorry, that still doesn't work, 
imo. Stick two of them in place of the "either/neither" and the third 
one in for the "other" and you still get nonsense. "and [either Harry 
or Tom] must die at the hand of LV for [neither Harry nor Tom] can 
live while LV survives." So LV must kill Harry or Tom. But neither 
survivor can live while LV survives. So what, the survivor has to 
then kill LV to live? I suppose one could figure out how that could 
happen, but the problem is that's not what the prophesy says. Or more 
accurately, that's a lot more than the prophesy says and convolutes 
one of the clauses.

The question at hand is whether this sentence *will* come true? And 
part of that question is in the "at the hand", instead of "by the 
hand". I would say that Myrtle died "at" the hand of Tom Riddle 
instead of "by" the hand. Tom didn't cast a spell that killed her, he 
controlled the Basilisk which killed her. So could Harry cast a 
Patronus which drives a bunch of Dementors to Voldemort and one of 
them sucks LV's soul? Or, say, Voldemort's last Horcrux is his own 
wand and Harry told Kreacher to get the wand and break it. When he 
does so, after Harry has already somehow "vanquished" Voldemort, he 
loses his last earthly anchor and crosses over, i.e. dies. (These 
aren't predictions, just examples. But if either occurs, you heard it 
here first <grin>) Both of these scenarios would qualify as "at" the 
hand of Harry. And, to give equal time <grin>, Steve's (and Carol's) 
trip to the other side of the veil with Voldemort in tow would also 
qualify.

Not that I don't like any of these outcomes, but I have Dumbledore's 
words from HBP nagging at me. "You are setting too much store by the 
prophesy!" (p.509, US) He works very hard to get Harry (and us) to 
understand that the prophesy only comes true when one acts on it. And 
though Voldemort is not going to stop acting on it, Harry does. not. 
have. to. Which means to me that if Harry chooses not to have 
Voldemort die "at" his hand (and Harry wins) then Voldemort *won't* 
die. Of course, if Voldemort wins, Harry will die "at" and "by" LV's 
hand - but we're not going there, that's woodchipper territory. ;)

If I were in Harry's shoes, I would prefer that Voldemort had no 
chance to *recover* his old form. I would prefer that Harry would 
*permanently* vanquish the Dark Lord. But, I have this suspicion that 
JKR would rather that Harry not be the cause of Voldemort's permanent 
demise, that she has some other ending in store for the erstwhile Tom 
Marvolo Riddle.

Mike