That depends upon whether they are saying 'thus saith the Lord" and their words are canonized, or whether they are expressing their opinions. Prophets have never been perfect. In fact, all during the OT times (and the NT times, for that matter,) the scriptures have been rather scrupulous in noting that the prophets all had their problems–they all had faults. They weren’t God’s puppets, becoming instantly unable to do anything but what God instructed them to do. They had free will, they had brains, and they had opinions. Sometimes those opinions were not correct. However, when they spoke AS prophets, and their words were accepted as scripture, that’s when they were 'truly prophets recieving revelations from God."
Noah was a prideful, arrogant twit. Abraham was a liar. Lot was terminally stupid–and was not really a moral giant. (He wasn’t much of a prophet, either, even IF angels appeared to him.) then there is Samson, who should have been a prophet, but who used his freedom to choose extremely unwisely. Isaac–had some major parenting problems, and Jacob his son was a cheat–and compared to him Isaac was Father of the Year. Moses was a murderer and had a bit of a problem with pride, himself. Paul was stubborn and obnoxious, Peter was, in spite of his name, a bit of a vacilator and more than a bit of a coward…as I read the scriptures I have often wondered why the stories of these men included their character flaws so clearly. I think it’s because of this insistance you have that prophets BE God, rather than men through whom God sometimes speaks. Not ‘always’ speaks. Not ‘unable to have incorrect opinions and prone to express them,’ but ‘when God speaks to mankind, He does it through a prophet’. God choosing a man to speak through is what MAKES him a prophet. Doesn’t make him perfect. Doesn’t make him sinless. Doesn’t make him omnscient. It simply means that sometimes God speaks through him.