Both Pretribbers and Preterists are clearly wrong that great tribulation begins with the DOTL.

[Truth7t7]

Why don't you recall that? Do you have a memory problem? I've talked about how I interpret Daniel 9:24-27 many times. How can you not remember? Daniel 9:27 is about the confirming of the new covenant by the blood of Jesus that put an end to the old covenant animal sacrifices and offerings and the consummation of making it desolate refers to the previous verse where it mentions the destruction of the city and the sanctuary, which occurred in 70 AD. The reason that occurred is because the Jews rejected Christ. It was God's wrath against them for failing to accept Jesus and what He did for them and they instead continued living under the curse of the law of the old covenant.

Thanks for the response!

You believe Daniel 9:24-27 took place in the 1st century with the cross of Calvary and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, OK

1.) Who is the "He" in Daniel 9:27?
2.) How do you explain the "He" being on this earth up until the future end or consummation?

I don't recall your belief and teaching regarding Daniel 9:27, I look forward to your response, waiting

(EVEN UNTIL THE CONSUMMATION)

"Daniel's AOD Is Future" and the bad guy causing the Abomination and Desolation will be present on earth to the "Consummation" The Ultimate End

"Future" Events Unfulfilled

Matthew 24:15KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

This "Future" evil figure (The Beast) will be present on earth making (Abomination & Desolation) to the (Consummation) or (The Ultimate End) "Future" Event(s) Unfulfilled

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of consummation

1: the act of consummating the consummation of a contract by mutual signature specifically : the consummating of a marriage
2: the ultimate end

Daniel's AOD (Even Until The Consummation) "Future" (The End)

Daniel 9:27KJV
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Thanks for the response!

You're welcome! This time try to remember what I believe.

You believe Daniel 9:24-27 took place in the 1st century with the cross of Calvary and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, OK

1.) Who is the "He" in Daniel 9:27?

Jesus. Do you agree that when He confirmed the new covenant with His sacrifice and His blood that it made the old covenant sacrifices and offerings obsolete? That is what Daniel 9:27 is talking about when it refers to the "He" who confirmed the covenant.

2.) How do you explain the "He" being on this earth up until the future end or consummation?

It doesn't say that. Jesus made the temple spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:37-38) which was the case right up until the consummation of the temple being physically destroyed.

If you disagree, fine. We can agree to disagree without all the accusations of diversion and all that nonsense. My beliefs are based on all of scripture and there are no contradictions in the way I interpret one verse compared to another. Most here cannot say that.

 

[claninja]

Hmmm. Maybe you should make that more clear when you're doing that then.

I’ll take it into consideration

Yes, he does and I agree with that, but I think the vials are parallel also and, for some reason, he doesn't. I see that as him being inconsistent.

The book of Revelation is not just a chronological telling of events, so it does not matter if the seven trumpets are described after the seven seals. It does NOT say that the angels are given the seven trumpets after the 7th seal event is over. That's your assumption, but it does not actually say that. We see the description of the seven trumpets after the description of the seventh seal, but nowhere does it say the angels are given the seven trumpets after the seventh seal event is over.

I didn’t say “over”. I said opened. When the 7th seal is opened, there is silence in heaven, and then, the angels are given the 7 trumpets. So strictly from a narrative standpoint, the trumpets occur sequentially post the opening of the 6th seal and 7th seals.

That doesn’t mean we can’t interpret them in some other order. But prior to interpretation, the trumpets naturally occur post opening of 7th seal.

 

[Davidpt]

If we conclude that Micah 4 can never be fulfilled in a literal manner then we have to look for a spiritual interpretation.

That is only true if Micah 4:3 belongs to the here and now. And if it does belong with the here and now it would be absurd in that case to not seek a spiritual interpretation instead. Therefore, I fully agree. Obviously, no one thinks Micah 4:3 can be fulfilled in a literal sense in this age. One reason Premils apply it to a millennium that follows this age instead.

But let's say that we have sought a spiritual interpretation instead. What would it look like? Would it look like what the text is describing---nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Once again, what exactly does that look like if being applied spiritually rather than literally?

Plus, what would Micah 4:3 look like if applied to an age that follows this age? Would or would it not be literally true, regardless whether a millennium follows or not, nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more--in the age to come? It would be absurd in that case to seek a spiritual interpretation if it belongs with an age to come.

Plus there are portions of Micah 4 that obviously require all of eternity to fulfill. So it's not like some parts of Micah 4 are not looking beyond the last days.

For example.

...and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever(Micah 4:4)

...and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever(Micah 4:5)

 

[Truth7t7]

You're welcome! This time try to remember what I believe.

Once again thanks for the response!

Jesus. Do you agree that when He confirmed the new covenant with His sacrifice and His blood that it made the old covenant sacrifices and offerings obsolete? That is what Daniel 9:27 is talking about when it refers to the "He" who confirmed the covenant.


It doesn't say that. Jesus made the temple spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:37-38) which was the case right up until the consummation of the temple being physically destroyed.

If you disagree, fine. We can agree to disagree without all the accusations of diversion and all that nonsense. My beliefs are based on all of scripture and there are no contradictions in the way I interpret one verse compared to another. Most here cannot say that.

You have the events seen below taking place in the 1st century, I Disagree

Daniel 12:1-2 shows (The Time Of The End) when the resurrection of all takes place and the book of life is open

Daniel 12:9 the words in the prophesy of Daniel are sealed up till (The Time Of The End) and it didn't take place in the 1st century as you believe and teach

Daniel 12:11 speaks of the daily sacrifice and the abomination of desolation being set up, this will take place at (The Time Of The End) simple, clear, and before your eyes

Daniel 12:1-11KJV
1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
5 Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.
6 And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?
7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.
8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?
9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.
10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.
11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Matthew 24:15 shows Daniel 9:27 and the abomination of desolation taking place, this causes Matthew 24:21 in (The Great Tribulation) to take place, this didn't take place in the 1st century or 70AD Jerusalem

Matthew 24:29 silences the claims of 1st century fulfillment, because (Immediately After The Tribulation Of Those Days) caused by Matthew 24:15 in Daniels AOD, as we know that the literal, visible, second coming of Jesus Christ takes place in Matthew 24:30

Matthew 24:31 shows the last day resurrection in the angels harvesting the elect church from the earth

You can't erase the words (Immediately After The Tribulation Of Those Days) your claim of 1st century fulfillment is "Removed" because we know the second coming literally seen in Matthew 24:30 is a future event unfulfilled

Matthew 24:15-30KJV
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

 

[Truth7t7]

It doesn't say that. Jesus made the temple spiritually desolate (Matthew 23:37-38) which was the case right up until the consummation of the temple being physically destroyed.

We Disagree, The Word Consummation In Daniel 9:27 Is The Ultimate End Of This World, This Takes Place At The Second Coming

There's no mention of a temple being destroyed in Daniel 9:27, you've added your words to scripture, not a good thing

(The Future Consummation)

2 Peter 3:10KJV
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

 

[Davidpt]

We know this, the Holy Spirit teaches us all things.

1 John 2:27 … but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Two believers, both with the Holy Spirit teaching them all things, can have vastly different views of the millennium. So, to give an answer to your rhetorical questions, yes it’s entirely possible that which teaching is correct never gets settled, at least while we’re alive on earth.

We know from 2 Corinthians 12:9 that His power is made perfect in weakness. It could be that God never intended for us to all come to the same conclusion about the millennium, our studying and searching the scriptures may be what God ultimately wants and He accomplishes that through our inability to settle which teaching is correct, that is correct with absolute certainty.

And look how that is working out over all. Which you already briefly pointed out. For example, 5 ppl coming to 5 entirely different conclusions concerning particular passages at hand. And each one of them applying 1 John 2:27 as the reason why their conclusions are the correct conclusions. After all, it is impossible that the Holy Spirit can lie. Except no one disputes that.

But what is not impossible is that someone can lie about the Holy Spirit having taught them something. Maybe they are not purposely lying, it's that they are deceived into thinking the Holy Spirit taught them that the passages in question equal what they say it does. And that makes sense exactly how though, if 5 different people are coming to 5 entirely different conclusions regarding the same texts?

For example, Amil vs Premil. Assuming one of these positions is the correct position, obviously, both can't be the correct position. And each side then insisting 1 John 2:27 explains why they have to be correct, thus can't be wrong. It's real simple then. One cannot use 1 John 2:27 as proof that they are understanding something correctly. It's not that easy. One has to prove it from the texts themselves. And sometimes that requires a lot of hard work and digging as opposed to simply insisting 1 John 2:27 proves they are correct. Once again, the latter is not valid proof unless one can also prove it from the texts themselves and any digging deeper required.

 

[Davidpt]

We Disagree, The Word Consummation In Daniel 9:27 Is The Ultimate End Of This World, This Takes Place At The Second Coming

Of course it is. That is clearly what the word consummation In Daniel 9:27 equals per that context. Only someone doctrinally biased would disagree.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I didn’t say “over”. I said opened. When the 7th seal is opened, there is silence in heaven, and then, the angels are given the 7 trumpets. So strictly from a narrative standpoint, the trumpets occur sequentially post the opening of the 6th seal and 7th seals.

The point is that there is no basis for assuming that the trumpet events occur after the seal events. The fact that the trumpets are described after the seals does not prove anything in relation to the sequence of events one way or another.

That doesn’t mean we can’t interpret them in some other order. But prior to interpretation, the trumpets naturally occur post opening of 7th seal.

That is not indicated in the text. You're making that assumption simply because the trumpets are described after the seals and for no other reason. This is like insisting that the natural order of Revelation 11 and 12 is that Christ's birth and ascension occurred after the sounding of the 7th trumpet.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Of course it is. That is clearly what the word consummation In Daniel 9:27 equals per that context. Only someone doctrinally biased would disagree.

Yeah, just ignore the context of the verse. The consummation is related to the consummation of the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. That happened in 70 AD.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

We Disagree,

Yeah, I think we established that we disagree on this years ago. Maybe we should just agree to disagree at this point instead of repeating the same arguments over and over again.

The Word Consummation In Daniel 9:27 Is The Ultimate End Of This World, This Takes Place At The Second Coming

The word consummation means the ultimate completion of an event. In this case, the context of that is in relation to the destruction and desolation of the city and the sanctuary which happened in 70 AD.

There's no mention of a temple being destroyed in Daniel 9:27, you've added your words to scripture, not a good thing

You have no understanding of context. The desolation that its talking about is in directly relation to the destruction of the city and the sanctuary.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Once again thanks for the response!

You have the events seen below taking place in the 1st century, I Disagree

Daniel 12:1-2 shows (The Time Of The End) when the resurrection of all takes place and the book of life is open

I don't have this taking place in the 1st century. You have no clue as to what I believe, so stop trying to speak for me. Do you think there are no prophecies in the Bible about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple buildings in the Bible? If so, why would the Bible be silent about such a significant event? You deny that Jesus prophesied about the temple buildings being destroyed despite the fact that He clearly did. Just believe what you want.

 

[claninja]

The point is that there is no basis for assuming that the trumpet events occur after the seal events. The fact that the trumpets are described after the seals does not prove anything in relation to the sequence of events one way or another.


That is not indicated in the text. You're making that assumption simply because the trumpets are described after the seals and for no other reason. This is like insisting that the natural order of Revelation 11 and 12 is that Christ's birth and ascension occurred after the sounding of the 7th trumpet.

No, it’s not an assumption simply because it’s after. It’s based on John’s consistent use of “and i saw”.

“And I saw” is not necessarily a hard boundary marker in Revelation. John uses it repeatedly to advance the narrative within existing vision sequences.

For example, in Revelation 6, within the seal cycle, John repeatedly says “And I saw” as each seal is opened (Rev 6:1, 6:2, 6:5, 6:8). These are not separate visions; they are successive scenes within a single throne-room vision beginning in Revelation 4–5.

The same pattern continues elsewhere. In Revelation 14, John says “And I saw” as he moves from the Lamb on Mount Zion (14:1) to angels announcing judgment (14:6–8). In Revelation 19, he uses “And I saw” multiple times—heaven opened, an angel standing in the sun, and the armies gathered for battle (19:11, 19:17, 19:19)—yet all of this is clearly one continuous climactic vision of Christ’s victory. Likewise in Revelation 20, John again uses “And I saw” several times (20:1, 20:4, 20:11) within a single eschatological sequence that includes the millennium and final judgment.

INSTEAD, a genuine vision shift is usually signaled by stronger contextual markers (e.g., “I was in the Spirit,” “a great sign appeared,” or a clear change in setting), not merely by the words “and I saw.”

Therefore, I disagree that the “and I saw” in revelation 8:2 marks a new parallel vision cycle, rather than simply advancing the narrative within an existing vision.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think we can “interpret” the seals and trumpets as parallel cycles, it only means that from a narrative perspective, the trumpets follow the seals sequentially.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

No, it’s not an assumption simply because it’s after. It’s based on John’s consistent use of “and i saw”.

“And I saw” is not necessarily a hard boundary marker in Revelation. John uses it repeatedly to advance the narrative within existing vision sequences.

That does not mean that every time he saw something it was something in direct sequence chronologically to what he saw previously.

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This doesn't use the exact words "And I saw", but it's basically the same thing. It could easily have said "And I saw a great wonder in heaven...". Yet, what is described in Revelation 12 clearly does not follow what is described in Revelation 11 chronologically.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

You don't believe that what is described in Revelation 20:1 occurred chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19, do you? If not, then here is another example that disproves what you're saying about what it means when John says "And I saw".

 

[claninja]

That does not mean that every time he saw something it was something in direct sequence chronologically to what he saw previously.

Revelation 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:

This doesn't use the exact words "And I saw", but it's basically the same thing. It could easily have said "And I saw a great wonder in heaven...". Yet, what is described in Revelation 12 clearly does not follow what is described in Revelation 11 chronologically.

The transition to Revelation 12 does not depend on “and I saw” language, and actually uses a stronger visionary marker (“a great sign appeared”), so it cannot be used to argue that “I saw” disrupts chronological sequencing. Hypothetically inserting “and I saw” doesn’t address how John consistently uses it.

Revelation 20:1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.

You don't believe that what is described in Revelation 20:1 occurred chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19, do you? If not, then here is another example that disproves what you're saying about what it means when John says "And I saw".

I do think revelation 20 occurs chronologically after 19, according to the narrative.

Revelation 19 - christ comes and throws the beast in the LOF

Transition: “and i saw”

Revelation 20 - Christ throws the devil into the LOF where the beast already was thrown.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The transition to Revelation 12 does not depend on “and I saw” language, and actually uses a stronger visionary marker (“a great sign appeared”), so it cannot be used to argue that “I saw” disrupts chronological sequencing. Hypothetically inserting “and I saw” doesn’t address how John consistently uses it.

Come on. It means the same thing there. As I said, he could have said "And I saw a great sign in heaven..." and it would have meant the exact same thing.

I do think revelation 20 occurs chronologically after 19, according to the narrative.

You believe that Revelation 19:11-21 describes what happened in 70 AD, right? So, you are saying that you think Jesus did not start to reign and Satan was not bound until 70 AD or after 70 AD?

Revelation 19 - christ comes and throws the beast in the LOF

Transition: “and i saw”

Revelation 20 - Christ throws the devil into the LOF where the beast already was thrown.

Why did you skip all the way to verse 10? John saw some other things before that. Would you try to claim that what is described in Revelation 20:1-6 all occurred after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21?

 

[claninja]

Come on. It means the same thing there. As I said, he could have said "And I saw a great sign in heaven..." and it would have meant the exact same thing.

The purpose of my argument is to demonstrate John’s consistent use of “and I saw” throughout revelation. Hypotheticals don’t address his consistent use.

You believe that Revelation 19:11-21 describes what happened in 70 AD, right? So, you are saying that you think Jesus did not start to reign and Satan was not bound until 70 AD or after 70 AD?

not necessarily, and no.

These are apocalyptic visions, while the narrative is chronological, I don’t think that requires they be interpreted as strictly chronological.

Why did you skip all the way to verse 10? John saw some other things before that. Would you try to claim that what is described in Revelation 20:1-6 all occurred after what is described in Revelation 19:11-21?

Yes, that is the natural flow of the narrative, PRIOR to applying theological interpretation.

• Beast destroys harlot
• Wedding feast is ready
• Christ comes and throws beast in LOF
• Christ then raises those who had been killed by the beast and reigns 1000 years with them, while Satan is bound
• Christ then throws Satan into LOF after 1000 years (plus little season), where beast already was.

From a simple reading of the narrative, prior to theological interpretation, the beast is in the LOF from revelation 19:20-20:10.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

The purpose of my argument is to demonstrate John’s consistent use of “and I saw” throughout revelation. Hypotheticals don’t address his consistent use.

It's not a hypothetical to see that what he said at the beginning of Revelation 12 is the same as saying "And I saw".

not necessarily, and no.

How do you interpret Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:1-6 then?

These are apocalyptic visions, while the narrative is chronological, I don’t think that requires they be interpreted as strictly chronological.

Can you try to not be so vague? Revelation 20 starts with "And I saw". Based on the man-made rule you have come up with, that means what is described starting at the beginning of Revelation 20 would have to occur chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19. So, is that what you believe is the case or not?

Yes, that is the natural flow of the narrative, PRIOR to applying theological interpretation.

• Beast destroys harlot
• Wedding feast is ready
• Christ comes and throws beast in LOF
• Christ then raises those who had been killed by the beast and reigns 1000 years with them, while Satan is bound
• Christ then throws Satan into LOF after 1000 years (plus little season), where beast already was.

From a simple reading of the narrative, prior to theological interpretation, the beast is in the LOF from revelation 19:20-20:10.

So, you believe that Jesus didn't start reigning and that Satan wasn't bound until after what is described at the end of Revelation 19. When exactly was that then? Give me the year.

 

[grafted branch]

Obviously, no one thinks Micah 4:3 can be fulfilled in a literal sense in this age. One reason Premils apply it to a millennium that follows this age instead.

How can Micah 4:3 ever be fulfilled in a literal manner, this age or a Premil millennium? The Bible never passes away and the Bible contains detailed descriptions of war. How can war not be learned anymore literally? I think you’re going to have to argue that people don’t have free will if you argue they can’t literally learn war. Maybe you have no free will in the millennium, I don’t know.

But let's say that we have sought a spiritual interpretation instead. What would it look like?

I would say what it looks like spiritually is a garden of Eden scenario, prior to the fall of mankind, when there was innocence and no sin. Only going back to that time can war be learned no more, war can be learned once sin enters into the equation. Remove sin and you have swords into plowshares, the wolf and the lamb feeding together, all things become new, and so on. Christ removes or put away sin and that’s what it’s pointing to spiritually.

 

[claninja]

It's not a hypothetical to see that what he said at the beginning of Revelation 12 is the same as saying "And I saw".


How do you interpret Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:1-6 then?


Can you try to not be so vague? Revelation 20 starts with "And I saw". Based on the man-made rule you have come up with, that means what is described starting at the beginning of Revelation 20 would have to occur chronologically after what is described at the end of Revelation 19. So, is that what you believe is the case or not?


So, you believe that Jesus didn't start reigning and that Satan wasn't bound until after what is described at the end of Revelation 19. When exactly was that then? Give me the year.

Ok, I’ll try this again. My theological interpretation, and yours, is irrelevant to the point I’m making. I’m talking about the chronological sequence of the narrative itself, prior to any theological interpretation.

The phrase “and I saw” (καὶ εἶδον) most commonly transitions John’s viewpoint to the next scene in his visionary experience, either from one vision to the next or from one aspect of the same vision to another. By itself, it does not signal that John has abandoned the current narrative, begun a completely new vision, or reset the historical timeline. When Revelation intends that kind of transition, it normally provides additional literary cues, such as, “Then I saw a great sign…,” “Come, I will show you…,” or “He carried me away in the Spirit.”

So I’ll start with some low-hanging fruit. Simply reading Revelation 20 on its own, without importing any theological conclusions, do the occurrences of καὶ εἶδον (“and I saw”) in Revelation 20:4, 20:11, and 20:12 suggest that the events following those verses do not occur chronologically after what immediately precedes them?

In other words, within the narrative itself, does Revelation 20:11 occur chronologically after verse 10, or does “and I saw” reset the timeline the way you argue it does in 20:1? Likewise, does Revelation 20:4 occur chronologically after verse 3, or does “and I saw” reset the timeline there as well?

If your answer is no - that 20:4 and 20:11 continue the narrative chronologically despite beginning with καὶ εἶδον - then why should we assume that the identical phrase in 20:1 functions differently? What in the text itself, apart from theological interpretation, indicates that 20:1 resets the timeline while the other occurrences do not?

And this all leads back to my main point with @Davidpt - why does “and i saw” in revelation 8:2 reset the timeline line so that the seals and trumpets are “parallel”, where as it doesn’t in revelation 20:1?