The Prophecy in light of Deathly Hallows

[MerlinsBeard5]

i think that this sentence may have had something to do with the fact that harry could not die with vodemort alive and vise versa. could it be reversed and say none could die while the other survives?

[Blossom]

To be honest I still don't really understand that bit. Bit too deep:P

But i was sad not to find out how the Potters and Longbottoms had 'thrice defied' Voldemort.

[Ghostx]

I think it had to do with the Horcrux in Harry.

If the Horcrux was still in harry and harry killed the existing voldemort, voldemorts soul would still have survived, because it was in Harry.

So, Harry had to dystroy the horcruxes and then Kill Voldemort...

I dunno just a thought...

[Tiphany]

It seems that while Harry is alive (with a pioece of Voldemort's soul inside) Voldemort cannot die. Likewise, while Voldemort is alive (preserving the blood protection Lily left) harry cannot die. So the only way for either of them to die is for the other to die first. If Harry had tried to kill Voldemort, having destroyed all the horcruxes but not been "killed" himself, Voldemort wouldn't have died - just as Harry didn't die. Harry's only weapon, and way of resolving the problem, was to offer to die first - that was an ingenious bit of plotting.

So "neither can live while the other survives" doesn't seem true on the surface. I suppose it means partly that neither can live whole, unblemished, untarnished - they are each "contaminated" by a part of the other.

Really I think what the prophecy was getting at was that neither can bear to live around the other: this is touched on in book 6, I think, as well as 7 - neither can be happy to just walk away. Neither can let the other alone. Neither can agree to co-exist peacefully. Neither can live the life they were meant to, can be happy and unencumbered, while the other is alive.

[Ghostx]

Originally Posted by Tiphany

It seems that while Harry is alive (with a pioece of Voldemort's soul inside) Voldemort cannot die. Likewise, while Voldemort is alive (preserving the blood protection Lily left) harry cannot die. So the only way for either of them to die is for the other to die first. If Harry had tried to kill Voldemort, having destroyed all the horcruxes but not been "killed" himself, Voldemort wouldn't have died - just as Harry didn't die. Harry's only weapon, and way of resolving the problem, was to offer to die first - that was an ingenious bit of plotting.

So "neither can live while the other survives" doesn't seem true on the surface. I suppose it means partly that neither can live whole, unblemished, untarnished - they are each "contaminated" by a part of the other.

Really I think what the prophecy was getting at was that neither can bear to live around the other: this is touched on in book 6, I think, as well as 7 - neither can be happy to just walk away. Neither can let the other alone. Neither can agree to co-exist peacefully. Neither can live the life they were meant to, can be happy and unencumbered, while the other is alive.

This was the point i was trying to get at, thanks

[me_potter_fan]

so when was the prophecy fulfilled?

[BookWhizzbee]

I don't really understand the 'either must die at the hand of the other' bit. Wouldn't the same results have been achieved with someone else killing Harry or Vodlemort respectively? Besides, it could be argued that Voldemort killed himself, seeing as it was his own 'Avada Kedavra' that backfired (again, heehee).

What I find really funny is that, from a certain point of view, Harry was killed by Voldemort and Vodlemort was killed by Harry, so either really did (sort of) die at the hand of the other, but looking at it from another angle, neither died at the hand of the other - Harry didn't really die, for Voldemort see above.

So on the whole I guess I agree with Dumbledore: The prophecy has exactly as much meaning as you give it; choose to not believe in it and it has no meaning at all.

[thedragonfly]

Originally Posted by BookWhizzbee

I don't really understand the 'either must die at the hand of the other' bit. Wouldn't the same results have been achieved with someone else killing Harry or Vodlemort respectively? Besides, it could be argued that Voldemort killed himself, seeing as it was his own 'Avada Kedavra' that backfired (again, heehee).

It can be argued however, that it was Harry's hand that cast the spell that deflected the killing curse. And Harry was the one who managed to track down and destroy the rest of the Horcruxes, so his was the hand that made it possible to kill Voldemort. So while Harry didn't actually kill Voldemort with a killing curse that he produced, he still was the reason Voldemort was dead...so I think that satifies the prophecy.

[Fenix]

Originally Posted by Tiphany

It seems that while Harry is alive (with a pioece of Voldemort's soul inside) Voldemort cannot die. Likewise, while Voldemort is alive (preserving the blood protection Lily left) harry cannot die. So the only way for either of them to die is for the other to die first. If Harry had tried to kill Voldemort, having destroyed all the horcruxes but not been "killed" himself, Voldemort wouldn't have died - just as Harry didn't die. Harry's only weapon, and way of resolving the problem, was to offer to die first - that was an ingenious bit of plotting.

So "neither can live while the other survives" doesn't seem true on the surface. I suppose it means partly that neither can live whole, unblemished, untarnished - they are each "contaminated" by a part of the other.

Really I think what the prophecy was getting at was that neither can bear to live around the other: this is touched on in book 6, I think, as well as 7 - neither can be happy to just walk away. Neither can let the other alone. Neither can agree to co-exist peacefully. Neither can live the life they were meant to, can be happy and unencumbered, while the other is alive.

i agree...
what is more, i think that the prophecy somehow, did propehcised two things that were done later on:
1. voldemort making harry a horcruxe
2. voldemort reviving and using harry´s blood, thus creating a "good" horcrux of harry in himself....

that´s why, apart from what, Tiphany says, neither can live while the other survives

[Mrs_D_Malfoy]

i'm just asking this because one of them was supposed to kill the other and harry didn't kill voldemort, voldemort really killed himself. so does that fulfill the prophecy?


~**~

[Lobo237]

To me the neither can live while the other survives refers to the simple fact that neither can have the life they want while the other is alive.

Voldemort can't reign completely supreme while the ultimate symbol of defiance is still breathing. Harry is a focal point that any one who opposes him can rally around after his first unsuccessful attempt to murder him. As such there is no way for Voldemort to choose to ignore him and let him live. He must be killed to break the opposition.

Harry can't have the normal life he desires as long as the most sinister wizard in the world is determined to hunt him down. He has the choice of an existence of running and hiding or the more proactive "get him before he gets me" approach.

Neither can truly "live" with their fates tied to each other in such away. The most they can do is "survive", because while they both exist their "lives" are dedicated to the eradication of the other.

[BookWhizzbee]

Originally Posted by Mrs_D_Malfoy

i'm just asking this because one of them was supposed to kill the other and harry didn't kill voldemort, voldemort really killed himself. so does that fulfill the prophecy?


~**~

I have been wondering about that as well. Frankly, the prophecy makes even less sense to me now than it did before 'Deathly Hallows'.

[Daelin]

Voldemort died "at the hand" of Harry Potter, not by his hand. The prophecy was dead on.

[Mrs_D_Malfoy]

Originally Posted by Lobo237

To me the neither can live while the other survives refers to the simple fact that neither can have the life they want while the other is alive.

Voldemort can't reign completely supreme while the ultimate symbol of defiance is still breathing. Harry is a focal point that any one who opposes him can rally around after his first unsuccessful attempt to murder him. As such there is no way for Voldemort to choose to ignore him and let him live. He must be killed to break the opposition.

Harry can't have the normal life he desires as long as the most sinister wizard in the world is determined to hunt him down. He has the choice of an existence of running and hiding or the more proactive "get him before he gets me" approach.

Neither can truly "live" with their fates tied to each other in such away. The most they can do is "survive", because while they both exist their "lives" are dedicated to the eradication of the other.

yea i think i get it now, cuz it didn't accually SAY one HAD to kill the other. GOT IT! thanks much!

~**~

[Mandikins]

Maybe the prophecy referred to the fact that when Voldemort tried to kill Harry and they both went unconscience. Because Harry survived Voldemort couldn't live because he was trapped wherever Harry was. Voldemort couldn't live cause Harry was surviving. Once Harry was living again Voldemort wasn't trapt anymore. Maybe the same thing would have occured vice versa if Harry tried to kill Voldemort before his horicrux was destroyed.

[icklek]

Originally Posted by cityxstargazers

It can be argued however, that it was Harry's hand that cast the spell that deflected the killing curse. And Harry was the one who managed to track down and destroy the rest of the Horcruxes, so his was the hand that made it possible to kill Voldemort. So while Harry didn't actually kill Voldemort with a killing curse that he produced, he still was the reason Voldemort was dead...so I think that satifies the prophecy.

Actually Harry only destroys one Horcrux himself:

Diary - Harry
Ring - Dumbledore
Locket – Ron
Cup – Hermione
Diadem – Crabbe via Fiendfyre
Nagini – Neville
Harry Potter - Voldemort

[padfootandme]

I don't think the prophecy can be twisted to say that neither can die while the other survives. I think it just meant that because of the way their lives have twisted around each other, one of them will end up killing the other, not because they HAVE to, but because Voldemort is determined to become all powerful and will want to be the one to finally make that happen by killing Harry. Harry's life has been torn apart by Voldemort and it was Harry who he was after when he lost power, so I think that one of them was going to kill the other in the end because of how their lives were entertwined. Plus, I don't think the prophecy would have any knowledge of Harry becoming a horcrux, it seems like that was an accident.

[TeraBlight]

So, Harry and Voldemort are related (discussed in depth here and here) - both are of Peverell descent. Not only that, but both are the principal heirs of their respective ancestors, as Voldemort would have legally inherited the Resurrection Stone eventually, and as Harry legally inherits the Invisibility Cloak.
The exact manner of their descent isn't clear - if we go by the fairy tale, the second Peverell brother (Cadmus) was the master of the Stone, but died childless, while the third Peverell brother (Ignotus) was the master of the Cloak and had children. If we go with Dumbledore's opinion that the brothers created the Hallows themselves, rather than being gifted them by death, it seems reasonable to me to assume that they collaborated on all of them, rather than each making one by himself. How much truth there is in the manner of their deaths is also questionable, so any of them may have had children after all.
Nevertheless, Dumbledore confirms that Harry is the descendent of the third brother, although his making this connection may have more to do with Godric's Hollow than with the Cloak.
Anyway, as we also know that none of them have close relatives on their pure-blood side (Voldemort is the last descendent of Slytherin, so there can be no close Gaunt relatives, and it is unreasonable to assume that Harry does have close living Potter relatives which never played a role in the book), we can hypothesize that they may even be the last remnants of the Peverell bloodline.

If this is so, what does it mean with respect to the prophecy?

Prior to "Hallows", we were lead to believe that the prophecy is more or less entirely self-fulfilling, i.e. that any special connection between Harry and Voldemort is due to Voldemort's decision to take the prophecy at face value. And we were lead to believe that Voldemort would have been free to choose Neville rather than Harry, and that he chose mainly on the basis of Harry being a half-blood, like himself.

The Peverell connection surely adds a new level to this, though. Harry and Voldemort HAD a special connection before the prophecy was made - by means of their inheritance of the Hallows. And the third Hallow, the one that can't be inherited but has to be won, is the very thing that decides the final battle between the two.
This sounds like deep magic to me, like predestination, and with all due respect to Dumbledore I find it hard to imagine that Voldemort ever had the option to "just walk away" or to make Neville the Chose One.

Opinions?

[bryanweasley]

Originally Posted by TeraBlight

If this is so, what does it mean with respect to the prophecy?

Prior to "Hallows", we were lead to believe that the prophecy is more or less entirely self-fulfilling, i.e. that any special connection between Harry and Voldemort is due to Voldemort's decision to take the prophecy at face value. And we were lead to believe that Voldemort would have been free to choose Neville rather than Harry, and that he chose mainly on the basis of Harry being a half-blood, like himself.

The Peverell connection surely adds a new level to this, though. Harry and Voldemort HAD a special connection before the prophecy was made - by means of their inheritance of the Hallows. And the third Hallow, the one that can't be inherited but has to be won, is the very thing that decides the final battle between the two.
This sounds like deep magic to me, like predestination, and with all due respect to Dumbledore I find it hard to imagine that Voldemort ever had the option to "just walk away" or to make Neville the Chose One.

Opinions?

I am not touching the connection of the Peverell brothers and the Founders.

Order of the Phoenix '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… and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not… and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives… the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies…'

Up to Deathly Hallows we knew:

1) two boys were born "as the seventh month dies";
2) Both parents had thrice defied him; and
3) Voldemort had marked him as his equal

If Voldemort had not marked him as his equal:
1) Would Harry have realized that he had to kill him?
2) James and Lily could have been alive;
3) the Longbottoms wouldn't have been Curcio'ed

Going to either boys house:
1) Voldemort was vanquished when trying to kill Harry
2) Harry had a way into learning what Voldemort knew;
3) created an undefeatable opponent he couldn't possess

Voldemort created a self-fulfilling prophecy, at the time he didn't know he was doing.

[TeraBlight]

Originally Posted by bryanweasley

Voldemort created a self-fulfilling prophecy, at the time he didn't know he was doing.

I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say, or else I missed something in your response.
Let me try and summarize my point: Trelawney made the prophecy, and up to the connection we learn of in "Hallows" Dumbledore's opinion that the prophecy could have referred to either one of two boys, and that it was self-fulfilling, was very convincing.

Now, however, the final battle doesn't only mean that "the Dark Lord" was "vanquished" by the one "born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" because "the Dark Lord" has "marked him as his equal" and he "has power the Dark Lord knows not" (quoting the prophecy), but also that the Heir of the Third Hallow vanquished the Heir of the Second Hallow using the First Hallow. I now find it quite a stretch to maintain that the latter interpretation is just a coincidental product of a self-fulfilling prophecy - rather, it sounds like this was the way it had to be. Predestination.