In re John's letter at http://www.fivedoves.com/letters/jan2012/johnb125-1.htm, I never implied that he had "inserted" the word "then".  What I said was "I can't find a translation that uses "THEN"".  I did not check the New KJV because I did not check any translations that depart significantly from literal renderings.

It makes no sense to look up the definition of a word as common as "and" when Revelation wasn't written in English.  The NKJV's substitution of "then" for "and" isn't going to be umpired by the use of an English dictionary.  We all know what "and" means.

In the Greek, "kai" is used.  Normally "kai" means at the same time when used as a sequential conjunction while "de" is used to mean "and then afterwards".  But the Greek New Testament does not follow the rules of Greek grammar all the time either.
 
In Classical Greek, "kai" is used for "and" as a conjunction for two similar things.  "de" is used for two dis-similar things.  When "and" is used for a time sequence, "de" is what is normally used to express that they happened at different times, while "kai" typically does not imply such a thing.  However, the Greek NT does not follow the rules of Classical Greek .  It follows the usage in the LXX, which is Greek translated from Hebrew, and the Greek NT tends to follow the conventions of analysis for Greek having been translated from Hebrew.  Because of that, "kai" could probably mean either one since a Hebrew VAV is typically translated as "kai" into greek even when "de" would be more natural.  I think Revelation probably was originally written in Hebrew and then later published in Greek.
 
In short, nothing can be "proven" here that these things happen at a different time.  At best you can suggest a remote possibility, but there certainly is not the presence of any kind of true proof that they are sequentially at different times.

Also, I don't think the "Beast" is a person, but the political entitity.  The False Messiah will control the Beast - the One World Government.
 
NEVER read too much into grammar.  NEVER.  Way too many people have drawn goofy ideas because they read too much into the English grammar of a paraphrased English text.  Grammar does not always translate well from one language to another.   DON'T conclude that conventional wisdom is wrong unless you know how to analyze the grammar of the source language.  Often you can't even do word-for-word translations when it comes to the grammatical construction of a sentence. Take a class in Hebrew or Greek grammar and you'll see what I mean.  The difference between "and" and "then" or "for" vs "of" or "to" vs "therefore" should never change your theology and should never be offered as "proof" without examining the original language.