Of course not everything is just the way you'd want it. They have a wide variety of presenters, especially in the break-out sessions. Like a box of chocolates, sometimes you bite into one and wish you had a different piece. I was in one where a guy just kind of read his academic paper on ... (wow .. what *was* that about ...).
One other point to quibble: one of the presenters was asked about creation or the sabbath or something, and he kind of took a deep breath and started to explain that Genesis was written by Moses to Israel after the Exodus in order to teach them blah blah blah, ... the trick here being that once you assign that teaching context to Genesis, it is much easier to push your point in another direction.
Now, I have to confess that I do a lot of context-setting when I teach and preach. And I am aware that my context setting is done in order to move our interpretation and application in new directions. Recently, for example, I spent some time on the old testament battlefield context of "gospel" in order to fill out the new testament sense of "the gospel of the kingdom." So I do not argue against using context.
What I do argue against is this kind of context-by-assertion play in Genesis. Because nobody really knows when Genesis was written. There is a strong case for Moses having quite a bit to do with it, but there is no reason to believe that none of it was on hand before Moses got there. I've heard good arguments for authorship by Joseph, for example.
And if Joseph did write his part, and if Abraham recorded his part, well this whole re-reading in the supposed context of the Exodus community begins to feel pretty weak.
So let's everybody just stick to the context that the Bible actually gives us.