I think you are forgetting "But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest."

These are not hoppers, but other flying insects that have six legs and none specialised (bees, flies, beetles etc).

I agree that whoever wrote this was referring to insects, but they were pretty slopy in their writing or very ignorant of insect structure.
Interesting that they do not refer to non winged insects (though most are, ant drones don't).

We agree on the point that the bible cannot be read literally, word for word.

I agree that it is sloppy writing.  There's even more sloppy writing than that in the Old Testament.  If it was clear, there wouldn't be so many churches out there.  This creates two points:  (1) God uses men to deliver his word, and so it is always imperfect to some extent (as I said, the surgeon is no better than his scalpel); and (2) a living prophet today is required to give guidance and answer questions so that such interpretations aren't left to men.

Oddly, I'd argue that a living prophet would be next to useless these days.  In the time of the Old Testament, the people believed in the word of the prophets, yet Jeremiah, who predicted the moral downfall of Israel, the Babylonian Exile, and the desruction of the First Temple, was beaten almost to death and imprisoned because the people didn't like what he had to say.  And that was in a region where almost everyone subscribed to a single form of a single religion!  The bible seems to be most effective as a text used for interpretation, and not for literal value of its history and laws (which have countless contradictions therein).

If there was any divine guidance then it wouldn't matter who wrote it, it'd have to be accurate.

And prophets are thicker than flies most places, and how do you know any claimed prophet is actually in contact with the right information source?

Well. I've wasted enough time here today, see ya later. Thanks for the talk.

Every person has a right to personal revelation about the rightness or wrongness of a gospel teaching and whether a prophet is real.  If it is approached with a meek heart, with real intent and an exercise of faith and prayer, then you get your own personal answer.  By all means, don't take anyone else's word on it.  In addition, by a person's works, you can know because they will be clothed in righteousness.

If there is divine guidance, it still must be channeled through the conduit.  Thus, a prophet would not utter words he's never heard before.  He would speak in his colloquial tongue.  It would be doctrinally accurate, but not necessarily accurate in a grammatic sense, etc.

Depending on which area of the world you're in, a prophet probably wouldn't be stoned or killed as in the old days.  He would either be listened to or ignored (although our first latter day prophet, Joseph Smith, was murdered by a mob).

So basically a prophet is anyone who claims to be one that is convincing and you believe and doesn't speak in silly voices.
And isn't responded to with violence?

Hmmm...

Wrong.  As I stated on many occasions, each individual has the right to receive personal revelation confirming whether a prophet is real.  I'm just saying that the false prophets you seem to refer to are usually pretty easy to differentiate.

"Every person has a right to personal revelation about the rightness or wrongness of a gospel teaching and whether a prophet is real."
"In addition, by a person's works, you can know because they will be clothed in righteousness."


I was taking this to mean that if someone comes up to you and says they are a prophet, and you believe them, then they are.

"Thus, a prophet would not utter words he's never heard before.  He would speak in his colloquial tongue."

This to mean no silly voices

"He would either be listened to or ignored"

To mean that they would not be met with violence.

So where did I go wrong?

What false prophets I refer to, the funny voiced channellers?

My thoughts were that you were referring to religious fanatics.

Righteousness:  A prophet will not be a sinner, so there is one distinction.

Colloquial Tongue:  I'm just saying that a prophet will speak like everyone else, not some booming voice or through some strange channeling experience.

Listened to or Ignored:  Of course, they are met with violence sometimes.  I think I was responding to someone else's comment about how today's society would kill them.  This was just my personal opinion (hoping that society wouldn't be so violent to a peaceful prophet these days).

They are not a prophet just because you believe them.  They are a prophet because you have taken their words, prayed about them, and received personal confirmation that they are.  This has nothing to do with personal belief.

I should point out that our belief is that God only has one prophet to lead the earth.  He wouldn't go around to a bunch of different people and create inconsistency.  But our church is one of stewardships.  The prophet has stewardship over the entire church (and technically is the spokesman for God on the world).  He has twelve apostles who are witnesses to confirm his words.  Then in each part of the organization, a person has certain stewardships.  The leader of a congregation has the right to receive revelation on behalf of his congregation.  A father for his family.  An individual for himself/herself, etc. etc.  Therefore, to use the term "prophet" is to use a colloquialism for the law of stewardship.

How do you reconcile the two above statements, it has to be personally confirmed (what , god comes down and says 'yep that's him) but you also have to accept confimation by someone else on your behalf?

Accepting someone else's opinion seems a pretty poor way to be getting the 'right' message.

The bible doesn't say to pray about seeing if it's true.


Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

Trusting your feelings has never been accurate. It feels good to sin, (or rather it's self rewarding to do as you please, instead of doing something someone else wants to. If you feel something is right, and it disagrees with bible, your feelings are wrong.

Study the Word to find truth, Do not trust feelings.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?

For example, if a prophet says that all members of the church must only take 30 steps on Wednesdays (just making up an absurd example), then each individual takes that comment, prays about it, and receives confirmation that it is true.

However, since God will not let a prophet lead his people astray, many people just take his word on it when he speaks.  If it affects me, I prefer the personal confirmation of his words because I, like you, question everything.

Heath, what you say goes against scripture, something Jesus and his followers use.

It's still not clear how you identify a 'real' prophet other than it being someone you agree with.

Which doesn't seem like a good idea somehow.

A real prophet can be verified by being in line with scripture. If it is different, it would show a problem with the prophet, not the bible.

But then you don't need a prophet, they just reinforce what's already 'known'.

Which isn't the purpose of a prophet.

Jesus as a prophet changed things away from what was stated in the old testament, opening the religion to non-Jews and so on, or so some christian sects claim.

And prophet wise, we really don't need to hear anymore to be saved. (if God does say something now, it's not to deny the bible) God may want to say something to a group, an indivual, that they need to hear.
What I am saying the bible contains enough to show us how to find salvation. To build up a relation with Jesus.
I would love to hear something personal, like right now, on how I can be used to show you something. But that's up to God, not me.
But I want to clarify prophecy exists, but to be sure if it's from God, you compare it to scripture. As a follower of Jesus would do, according to scripture.

But the stuff that came from jesus did not fully support what had been scripture up to that point. He came up with a new lot of modifications to the existing code.

So by your own reasoning he couldn't have been a real prophet.

Actually Jesus used scripture. And the apostles, they used scripture as well.

And also deviated from the original religion dramatically, creating Christianity from Judaism.

Yep the law to show sin. And sin is what makes it clear we are not perfect.

And the resurection to show that we can be forgiven of our sins through Jesus.

Just ask the jews and the christians if they are the same religions. They are not. Resurrection verses the law.
We cannot follow the law, but we can all find forgiveness.

But how can you be a prophet following scripture if you change it?

Or does it rate as following scripture if you make sure you keep about half of it each time you have a prophet.?

And there was a lot more than that involved in the changes of the christian scism.

The apostles used scripture. I think we're on different topics. Are you saying that they changed scripture, that it gave it a different meaning?

I'm saying that Old testament stuff is the original religion and if a prophet has to be in accordance with the original scripture (as stated earlier) then jesus would have to keep to the old testament. Any changes would mean he was a false prophet.


Or are you saying that the keeping to scripture only applies after jesus made the changes/additions/modifications.

I said Jesus and the apostles do follow Old Testament.