Sometimes someone makes a EW quote that is a pure bible quote. Why I wonder, is not the bible quote made firsthand but quoted from a quote? In some cases where the EW quote doesnt even add anything to the bible passage being posted... Doesnt this create a risk of missquote? What if EW had a special case example and quoted a scripture, someone reads and quotes the EW and thinks thats all there is to it but would have goten a much broader view had the original bible chapter been reviewed in context? Just wondering why the original source isnt always the used source?

/Thomas

Can you give us an example?

The obvious answer is the one posting may not have been aware it was a Bible quote. If you're talking about a case where the Bible quote and reference is given, then it might just be an oversite. It's easy to cut and paste an EGW quote, and someone could do that without even thinking that it's a Bible quote. Or that might already have it in front of them, and not want to make the effort to find an on-line Bible to quote from (quite often EGW quotes from a translation which is no longer commonly used, so just quoting it straight from what she wrote might not make it clear what translation was being used).