Dispensational eschatology is an incorrect hermeneutic

To begin this round, hear are the sources of scripture I said existed but did not have space for last round and promised this round. http://www.biblegateway.com... (same website can be used for all the following) Daniel 9: 25-27 Revelation 7-19 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17 Jude 14 James 5:7-9 1 Peter 4:7 Heb 10:24-25 Yes, I agree it would be redundant to define ‘dispensation' further if the only thing to do in this debate was for you and me to try and teach each other something, that something being something we both already know. But for the viewing audience who are following to debate whether to cast a vote at its end or learn about the topic so they can pick a side in this new controversy they are now just learning about I feel the wiki source is not enough to put the definition in context with the argument; especially when a lot a members on this site will not even skim a wiki source because they are too elitist too. Now to answer the Questions for this question and answer round: 1) who was the book of Revelation written to? Well, there are a few sets of people you could conclude it was written to from reading it. a) It was revealed through John, so I would think that qualifies as a potential person god intended to here it. b) There are seven messages directed at each church independently that was around at the time, a message for Ephesus, a message to Smyrna, one for Pergamum, one to Thyatira, one to Sardis, one to Philadelphia, and one to Laodicea. They are clearly all singled out independently from the whole church and from each other in the first three chapters. c) Chapter 4 and onward does not speak to any of the individual churches any longer so I believe it is meant for the whole body of Christ. 2) What was the purpose of it being written? The purpose? Truly only god knows for sure but as of the present I believe that its purpose in being written is to a) give the church hope, that there suffering and persecutions are not for nothing b) give warning about coming events, that potentially could happen very soon. c) give hope again, because they shall be saved even though there are not perfect and have many problems of there own their still dealing with you may have noticed I used the term ‘potentially' in their, let me explain a little further on that. Jesus could have returned in their lifetime and all prophecy have been fulfilled just fine and all the promises, ect ect. He could have returned in George Washington's day, he could have returned when Hitler was in power, and he could return today if he wanted too. But he has not. Why? Well our God, he's the kind of God that actually answers prayer, sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes a not yet, but he very much does answer prayers. And he answers prayers in such a way that they interfere with his original plans sometimes. Had Moses chosen not to pray God would have killed all the Israelites except for Moses and kept his covenant promises with Abraham through Moses, but Moses prayed for them to be spared and God held back giving mercy to them. This shows how our free will and prayer can offset the actions god was originally going to take, So because of prayer of his servants and his great mercy on us and the unsaved that we are trying to reach out to all the time, he has pushed back the date of his return more and more all the time, how many time we don't, could have occurred just once, maybe it's happened over a 100 times already. What we do know though is that at all times it's potentially ‘soon' 3) What were the purposes for the 70 weeks of Daniel? The passage you cited in the question spell's it out fine I think, "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people & upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and the prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" I don't wish to pretend to understand every little detail to that list of purposes, such as ‘to seal up the vision and the prophecy' rather escapes me, some of it obviously has something to do with Christ ‘to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness,….to anoint the most Holy' The thing I don't understand though that is relevant to this debate though is that I don't understand where the purpose of the prophecy comes up in this discussion of interpretation. How does it show time specifics to be false in pre-tribulation pre-millennialism, or that the people of that ‘holy city' do not get any different special attention from God than we gentiles? Now for my 3 questions: 1) what sort of ‘covenant' is the sacrifice of Jesus Christ our lord and savior categorized/described as being of? 2) How is the term ‘Dispensation' grammatically used in a sentence? (verb, adjective, proper noun, adverb, like a name, like a time, like measurement unit?) to make it as plane as possible for me or our audience make the example sentence (should you explain it using one) have nothing to do with this debate. 3) How precisely does seeing a series of chronologically successive periods in history in which God relates to human beings in different ways under different Biblical covenants lead (inevitably) to pre-tribulation pre-millennialism in eschatology.