Oral transmission in the Bible is reliable

Thanks Pro for your interesting rebuttals!Though I noticed Pro attacked Bart Ehrman's take on Oral Tradition.Thus Pro is saying that Pro knows more than a New Testament Scholar who has spent most of his career studying Oral Tradition.When it comes to such knowledge, Bart Ehrman trumps Pro by a PhD and many years of study as a professional.So Pro is arguing from False Authority, namely his own!Though not one of Pro's sources can trump Bart Ehrman on Authority.Pro has provided absolutely no real evidence that Oral tradition was ever the Basis of the New Testament.The discrepancies I have already highlighted in the Gospels point to their not being derived from Accurate Oral Tradition, or if they were, those writing them down made some terrible mistakes.Pro has put a lot of effort into pretending Oral tradition is accurate, even though history has shown that it is not!If Oral Tradition was judged on the Bible, it cannot ever be considered Accurate as the Bible is so extremely inaccurate.Otherwise they would all have the same Last Words of Jesus, not a set of conflicting stories about everything Jesus did.On Memory: Regardless of how good we think memories are, every time we recall something with our memory we alter it in some way, unbeknown to us. We think our recall is accurate, but really it is not.All the stories you continually recall about your youth or childhood, are different from the last time you recalled them, but, you never know this, as you think you are recalling them accurately, when in fact, you have changed them.The science behind this is actually obvious.Neurology has confirmed this with experiments and group studies.http://www.northwestern.edu...Recalling memories is similar to the Telephone game or Chinese Whispers.Since it has been proved in science that recalling past events is haphazard, in spite of those less scientific and unverified sources that Pro sighted.My sources are well verified by study.http://www.youtube.com...So since from my sources, demonstrate clearly that we cannot rely on our memories to accurately recall events and every time we repeat those events, we alter them in some way, that is unknown to us.There is a real reason to question the accuracy of Oral Tradition, which relies strongly on such fickle recall.Yes, we think we are recalling our past events, the same events we have told repetitively (rote recall) over and over, but, we never realize that each time we have recalled it differently."Remember the telephone game where people take turns whispering a message into the ear of the next person in line? By the time the last person speaks it out loud, the message has radically changed. It’s been altered with each retelling.Source: http://www.realclearscience.com...Though I have already referenced the actual study previously. Turns out yours and everybody's memory is a lot like the telephone game, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study. Another issue with Oral Tradition is one of Emphasis. Stories may actually remain the same, but the emphasis of the story is so often altered by the mood of the person telling the story. If a person is recalling the story to a set of students or to a single student or to a group of doubters, the emphasis of different parts of the story changes.So each student or recipient of the teacher/orator may receive the same story but, with different emphasis on certain parts of the story, then each student has a different version of the same parables.This is easily observed in religious sects.Many sects use the same parables from the Bible with different meanings attributed to those parables.Why?Simply because the instructor placed a different emphasis on a different aspect of the Parable.Take for instance the Pentecostal Experience. Acts 2.The real story of the Pentecost was a group of Jewish people all gathered in the same place from different regions and having mixed languages from those regions. They did not realize that all of them had Hebrew drummed into them by their parents until one of them yelled out from a loud noise in Hebrew and they suddenly realized that they all had the same tongue given to them, not by the holy spirit, but by their own parents. As it is Jewish tradition to keep the children knowledgeable of their mother tongue.Yet, Pentecostal religions place emphasis on the experience and the flames over their heads instead of the social aspects of Judaism and the fact that all their parents taught them Hebrew. They appear to forget this and place emphasis on the holy spirit aspects and since when humans go into a euphoric state they tend to babble (glossolalia) which is truly meaningless, to both the utterer and any spiritual entity that would bother to even listen.But, they are both reading the same Bible or in case of Rote/Oral Tradition, listening to the same Orator.These massive differences in perceptions of the exact same Biblical passages can show how interpretation of the same story from an orator or even a different orator on the same passage can be equally different."The basis for this is in the incorrect hermeneutic of Acts 2:1-4, “When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound like a mighty rushing wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Now, according to Pentecostalism, the evidence of speaking in tongues here in Acts 2 is proof that tongues is the initial evidence of all believers when they speak in other tongues. In keeping this teaching, they fail to continue with their reading to receive an understanding of what tongues are being spoken of here in Acts 2."Source: http://www.puritanboard.com...Here is a Christian anti Pentecostalism blog.http://www.jesus-is-savior.com...See how vindictive one side of the Pentecostal tale is against the other.Both from reading exactly the same Parables.Just imagine the differences that can arrive from a series of orators, who may put differences in emphasis, thus interpretation on the very same parables.Remember, these two different sectarian views come from the exact same words, where Orators would often be transferring Oral Transmission with differing words, thus the differences in perceptions of the same tale could be even more different.There is thus no faith in Memory, nor even in Oral Tradition.There is no evidence, as Pro has never produced any that the New Testament is truly based on such Oral traditions, as I've read them all and they only Assume Oral Transmission at best.They truly don't know.Nobody knows if the New Testament really arose from Oral Tradition, or simply hearsay accounts and the imagination of the writers.Pro cannot prove the New Testament has anything to do with Oral Tradition.As I have already pointed out in clinical studies, memory, regardless of how good their memory may be will always present some errors. We cannot avoid this, because of the way the human brain functions.We use multiple faculties (structures) to record every little detail, but some structures are more active than others and similar items are stored in similar places in the brain, thus they may be recalled instead of the genuine item, but those recalling them are not aware of the differences.Rebuttals:Pro states: "Oral transmission is said to be even more reliable than written transmission."The key here is 'said to', which is only implied, and as such it is neither verified nor proved as such.From what I've already cited, memory is like a game of telephones, where memories alter without the person being aware of the changes, this demonstrates Pro's statement wrong, by the scientific study previously covered.Pro states: "Experts also list eye-witness testimony and oral tradition as reliable methods so long as they follow specific procedures to verify their authenticity"Pro had misread his own source, it states that they are only reliable if they meet certain conditions:Such as: 1. "The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series of witnesses." New Testament Fails this test, the line is non-existent.There is no genuine connection from the Gospel writers to the witnesses of the event to be found in any evidence. The Gospels are not named after their authors, nor contributors as most were dead long before the Gospels were written.2. "There should be several parallel and independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question." The New Testament accounts of Jesus also fail this test, thus the New Testament Oral Tradition is invalid according to Historical Method.There are no Parallel accounts of Jesus, the Gospels are written in different eras decades apart and they differ too much to be called consistent recollections.These are only the General requirements of Oral Tradition reliability, that the New Testament cannot satisfy when put to the test of Historical Method, and you can forget about the particular tests, it fails them all.http://en.wikipedia.org...This source and the requirements of validation of Oral Transmission to demonstrate it to be reliable, actually proves Bart Ehrman's contention against the Gospels as Correct and Valid.Thus Pro's source validates Ehrman's Statements posed in my previous argument.http://www.youtube.com...Thus by Pro's own source, the Oral Transmission in the New Testament is Historically Unreliable.This is all I have time for now, though there is a lot more to come.Thanks Pro for you great insight.Now back to Pro!