Matthew 24:1-35 is exclusively about Jerusalem's judgment terminating in 70 A.D.
Vanderhoven, if I accept your version, then it means Matthew (and Jesus for that matter) lied. I'll stick to Matthew's version. Jesus' Second Coming is definitely a future event (cf. Matt. 24:29-31).
Duran, I see it differently. I follow the natural Revelation sequence in this case. Beast from the sea was first on the scene. It had a limited lifespan:
5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. (Rev. 13:5 ESV)
Note now the activities of Beast from the earth. It put up an image of Beast from the sea. In my mind that means that Beast from the sea is no more. It then gave breath to the image, the image now becoming a beast in its own right:
11 Then I saw another beast rising out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb and it spoke like a dragon. (Rev. 13:11 ESV)
15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. (Rev. 13:15 ESV)
The new beast is identified in Rev. 17 as the scarlet-colored wild beast, i.e., Beast from the abyss.