You are not looking at what the verses are saying correctly. In both situations, it is a short time. In Revelation 20:3, it is the total time. In Revelation 6:11, it is the remaining time.
The "souls under the altar" are not being told to "rest yet for a little season" back in the Dark Ages time frame; rather, they are being told that at a time that is much closer to the time when the others will be killed - long after the Dark Ages.
Fine... but aren't you suggesting that it is
being said to them at the time of the 5th Seal time-slot (per Rev6:9-11), which seal (in your similar-to-historicist viewpoint) occurred
quite a long-ish time ago??
If I'm right that you believe it was being "said to them" at the time of the 5th Seal time-slot (and that this wasn't a very recent event, from our perspective in time [today]), when are you saying the 5th Seal was opened? How long ago? (and then, will Satan's "
mikron chronon G3398 G5550" [after the MK age] last
roughly a similar length of time as that, in your viewpoint?? Or by your saying, "It's somewhat relative," you mean, we can consider them to be vastly differing b/c of the varied circumstances between the two?)
Also, the phrase does not indicate a specific amount of time. Therefore, you cannot really make a direct comparison between the time each might/would take. It is somewhat 'relative' - like the phrase "a little while"...
I meant relatively similar, rather than exactly-precise / direct-comparison.
Why wouldn't we come to the conclusion that Satan will be "loosed out from his prison" (after the 1000 yrs) for a length of time which would be similar to the length of time they had yet to rest (from whenever they were supposedly told this long ago at the 5th Seal events, from your perspective) instead of vastly differing from it (since the same words are used, for these, within the same book [/author]... It seems it would be a reasonable conclusion to come to, if you're going to say it of the one... [why not the other also?])
Again, my viewpoint
both accounts for this wording,
consistently,
while also being consistent with what verse 1 (Rev1:1) tells us, that John is going to be "SHOW[n]" (verse 1; and in 4:1 starting there)
"things which must come to pass IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" including ALL of the Seals (which are EQUIVALENT to "the beginning of birth PANG
S" Jesus spoke of--Matt24:
4-8; Mk13:
5-8 and Lk21:
8-11... and which Paul had said the INITIAL ONE of those ["birth
PANG [
SINGULAR]"] IS the ARRIVAL OF "the Day of the Lord" time-period [which time-period includes Judgments unfolding upon the earth, aka the 7-yr Trib, and also goes on to include the entire MK age--the Blessings aspect OF it]); IOW, the ARRIVAL OF the DOTL time-period coincides with: SEAL #1 / rider on white horse
with a bow [i.e. deception] / the "whose coming" of the man of sin "
IN HIS TIME" / the "he-he-he" who does the "
FOR ONE WEEK [7-yrs]" thing...
... which latter point brings me to the Subject of JUST WHY the [timing] wording in Dan9:24 (etc) is stated as it is (your viewpoint I believe simply glosses over) the BIG PICTURE of just
WHY it is stated as
"70 Weeks [/sevens]" [and the mention of the "
62 Weeks [/
sevens]" and the "
One Week [/
seven]"], when it could have just as easily just been written, simply as: "
490 Years are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city... After
483 years [such and such]... and in the
7 years [such and such]..." but it doesn't.
It uses this "
shabua - [set/s of]
sevens"
for a very specific and important REASON which I see your viewpoint as
missing altogether.
Why do
you believe it uses the wording of
"[70] shabua / sevens" rather than just plainly saying (as it could have), "
490 YEARS are determined upon..." ?
(my viewpoint also contains the
reasoning for this, which I am
not ascertaining from your viewpoint--your viewpoint basically says that it simply means "490 [
regular-ol'] Years"... someone just wanted to get fancy with their writing skilzzz--Well, then WHY doesn't it just SAY that, instead of the way it is spelled out here in this text, according to your view I wonder?)