I don’t think that he actually disagreed with any clauses yet, but again thanks for clarifying.
I think probably I should clarify what I still find to be intellectually dishonest. The part I think is a perfectly wonderful idea is his inquiry into the ANE and the best theological conclusions he can come to. He is being open to where the evidence leads him. BUT he will then (if he does what he said in the video) aim to interpret scientific evidence through that filter. That is, he will have predetermined conclusions on what science is allowed to say or not say. That is no different from AiG for example that, after their comprehensive Biblical analysis, concludes that all scientific ideas, no matter how well tested must line up with their interpretation of Scripture. As I mentioned in the other thread, they for example reject the Big Bang theory, which despite it’s remarkable number of predictions and experimental tests/confirmations, they reject (or filter) the evidence through their Biblical filter.
So at present, it appears an honest inquiry into what the Bible teaches and I hope that he is honest in what he finds and can conclude based upon the evidence he looks at. But it could be just an example of the scandal of the evangelical mind- where one musters up all the effort and intellectual freedom one can find but everybody could guess what one would find. But again, I think that all this does it help propagate a bigger problem that Christians have with science- we only accept science that agrees with our interpretations of the Bible. I do not think that geneological Adam is a healthy step forward in that sense- basically it allows Christians to accept some aspects of genetic science but only because it can theoretically still agree with their predetermined conclusions when they go to ‘study the natural world.’