@Vidqun
I'll start with what we agree on.
Ad the sea: we agree, there is nothing to add. I would even say that the same thing you wrote about the "sea" can also be done, from a symbolic-eschatological point of view, with the concept of "earth"...
I'm going to continue with what we agree less on:
Ad earth: here I miss your confirmation, for the other places in Revelation and which refer to the Greek γη (earth). I lack sufficient conclusiveness that γη (country) means some totalitarian systems with some democratic facade, or alternatively, why here so and in other places otherwise... the term γη in the NT-text, in terms of distribution of occurrence, is the most frequently represented in Revelation... that's why he thinks that your explanation for one occurrence, needs a stronger argumentation than the one you offer so far (I mean first the theoretical level, where the semantic meanings for each passage are evaluated, and only then the "materialization" = "what it can be", which you have already done)...
Ad abyssos: Your idea that abyssos expresses some "non-activity" is interesting = if I find a connection between 20:1;3 (abyssos) where Satan is cast and 20:7 where he is said to be released from "prison" again, then surely abyssos is a place of prison "non-activity". The moment of "non-activity" is demonstrable. However, I rather reject (I'm not entirely sure) that to associate abyssos with the statement "was, is not, and must come out of abyssos" that the "not" represents precisely the "abyssos"? The abyssos has not disappeared, therefore the "is not" must refer to the Beast, in my opinion. In my opinion, it is an important temporal datum that refers to the "position" of the writer (John) in terms of the timeline of the event. Simply put: at the time of the writing of Revelation, the Beast was not (I will elaborate in the following passage).The last part is where we disagree.
I'll explain the paradox first: my refusal to understand the heads of the Beast as individual empires is based, among other things, on the very texts from Daniel that you also cite in support of "heads" having that meaning. That's the paradox.
First of all, what you and the exegetes in the past were right about: at the time Daniel saw or heard the prophecies, and if they were directly connected to any geographical or political realities, then indeed the prophecies had a literal fulfillment. I, for one, am not opposed to a literal interpretation that sees the statue as a picture from Babylon to the Roman Empire (by this I would see the fulfilled meaning of the words: was, is not, and shall appear" = by the destruction of Jerusalem, then the Roman Empire fulfilled its purpose and in terms of literal fulfillment of prophecy, fades away. As the Beast disappears from the prophetic meaning, to reappear at the "end of days.")
So: the literal fulfillment, I think, was just as valid as, say, Jesus talking about Jerusalem being besieged and having to flee to the mountains of Judah. These literal moments of prophecy were fulfilled, both in the case of Jesus speaking and in Daniel. But it is forgotten that there the main motive was eschatological warning. Jesus is answering the apostles' question of when the "end of the world" would be, so Jerusalem or the mountains of Judah have a double meaning: the historical and literal one, and the eschatological and symbolic one. Also, Daniel in (2:28) claims that the dream of the statue, refers to "subsequent // later i.e. final days", whereas the LXX, already here, sounds quite "New Testament" when it translates (2:28) as "last days".
But it is not only this text (2:28) that makes me respect this vision, especially(!!!) eschatologically and futuristically, i.e. that it will be fulfilled only in the future. In 2,35 a description is given of what was in the dream and it is described that the stone, crushes iron, clay, bronze, silver and gold, like chaff. If Daniel is then interpreting the dream, then in 2:38 he refers to the king as a golden head, and then in the commentary he again comes to the passage where the whole (statue) is destroyed - 2:45. The stone is torn from the rock and destroys the iron, bronze, clay, silver and gold. The Aramaic text no longer even preserves the order of the materials as they will be destroyed (see the BHS and the reference to the LXX which "levels" the text to 2:35). The statue and all it represents must be destroyed in its entirety. Whether the destruction is symbolic or physical, then of course all entities must be present somehow.
For example, if I claim that the feet and toes represent the "Anglo-American Empire" (or whatever) and it is destroyed, then something must exist at the same time that also represents the golden head. And a defunct empire in the form of ancient Babylon probably isn't and won't be that. I would have to see in the golden head some other - admittedly prior (see order of empires) - but still existing empire that will succumb to destruction like all the others. I think this is only possible if the empires/rulers are quickly replaced and the overall duration is very fast - the 42 months of Revelation is offered to me as the most reasonable interpretation...
Exactly the same is the case with the 4 animals of Daniel chapter 7. The animals appear together from "the sea" (7:3) and then it is specified where they will operate - "from the earth" (7:13). In 7:11-12 it is clearly communicated that the 4th animal will be destroyed, burned with fire, but the other three animals will be allowed some time. If this 4th animal, with its 10 horns, is destroyed and Daniel's picture can be understood as a refinement of Revelation, then again the other animals that came out of the sea together must also exist at the time of the destruction of the 4th animal.
This is possible - in my opinion - only if the remnants of the 3 animals exist at the time the 4th animal is destroyed. It must happen quickly, in a matter of months and before the end.
So these are the reasons why I reject any large-scale - overlapping generations of empire.