I thought William Roach's article The Resurgence of Neo-Evangeicalism especially interesting. He cites Historic Premillennialist Craig Blomberg:
I have deliberately not taken a stand myself on any of the problems as I discussed them in this chapter. Because readers seem invariably curious, I will happily disclose where I come down at the moment, given the varying amounts of study I have devoted to each. I would support an old-earth creationism and opt for a combination of progressive creation and a literary-framework approach to Genesis 1. I lean towards Kidner’s approach to Genesis 2–3 but am open to other proposals. I suspect that Jonah really intended to recount a miracle that really did happen, but with Job I gravitate more towards Longman’s mediating approach. Despite the overwhelming consensus against it, I still find the arguments for the unity of Isaiah under a single primary author, even if lightly redacted later, more persuasive (or at least problematic) than most do. I remain pretty much baffled by Daniel 11; it is the issue I have researched by far the least. My inherent conservatism inclines me in the direction of taking it as genuine predictive prophecy, but I listen respectfully to those who argue for other interpretations and continue to mull them over. I reject Gundry’s approach to Matthew as highly unlikely. I have yet to be persuaded by Licona’s initial views of Matthew 27:51–53 but would love to see additional comparative research undertaken. I think good cases can still be mounted for the traditional ascriptions of authorship of the New Testament epistles, allowing for perhaps some posthumous editing of 2 Peter. And I refuse ever to be suckered back into the views of my young adult years, when I actually believed that the end would play out as Hal Lindsey claimed they would!
