That was not my point.
Moses was not present at the time of creation. SO something was passed down. Compare what you wrote to the time of the beginning of man and the time of writing. There is a long time span.
As I said, that is a theory, but not necessarily the way it was done.
It could have been "passed down" by the pen of God so to speak. What is not to say that God spoke directly to Moses and Moses penned what God wanted him to write. That is how the rest of the prophets did it. What is so different about Moses that "the word of the Lord came to me and I wrote..." That doesn't apply to Moses?? Why?
Oral Tradition is not a theory. For example the Gospels were written long after Jesus. The information was known and passed down long before it was written down which is know as Oral Tradition not the tradition of man. There is a huge difference.
You are wrong again.
Lapse in time does not matter.
Matthew was one of the first books in the NT to be written--around 50-55 A.D. or about 20 years after Christ was crucified. He was one of the Apostles, and an eye-witness. He wrote what he saw and heard. There is no oral tradition involved here. If you chalk that up to oral tradition, you might as well call it hearsay. It wouldn't stand in a court of law. But it wasn't. It was the witness of Matthew himself.
John wrote later, but he was still a witness. He was younger and lived longer. By the time that he wrote he had all the other gospels at his disposal. One of the purposes of the Gospel of John is to give supplemental information that the first three (the synoptics) do not give. Again, he was an eye-witness, and did not rely on the info of others, or oral tradition.
Mark worked closely with Peter. He got his information from Peter.
It is still not oral tradition. What information he needed he got from Peter.
Consider the introduction to Luke:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)
--He is writing to Theophilus, "declaring those things which are most surely believed among us."
Luke, the physician, was a companion of Paul. He is mentioned in the book of Acts, not only as the author but as one who traveled with Paul. Paul frequently was with the other apostles, and thus Luke would have been also. He must have gathered his information from the apostles themselves.
There is no oral tradition here. The authors of the gospels were either eye-witnesses or went straight to the eye-witnesses for their information. That is not oral tradition.