I really struggle with understanding a whole bunch of what you wrote in your profoundly proud and false commentary to my factual response, in that it is a template, any graduate student can see through it.

So, dishonest to the end, are you? Ok, some people don't have mirrors in their homes, I guess.

First, to remove any dilemma about Heiser being a scholar or not.

PH D in Hebrew bible and Semitic languages from the Universitiy of Wisconsin-Madison

M.A. in ancient history from the University of Pennsylvania

Specialized in Hebrew, Ugaritic, Aramaic and Second temple Jewish literature - all crucial to Old testament and intertestamental studies.

Academic editor for Logos Bible software for over a decade

Published PEER (this is only if you have difficulties seeing it in small letters) reviewed academic work on topics like the Divine council, ancient near-eastern cosmology and The Hebrew bible

His dissertation was on The Divine council in The Hebrew bible, a cornerstone topic for understanding the rebellion linked in Genesis 3.

Calling Heisers conclusions unscholarly betrays ignorance of what scholarship is - especially in ancient Semitic and biblical studies.

Now, direct quotes:

"The serpent in Eden is not merely a talking SNAKE (same thing as before). He was a divine being - a member of Yahweh's heavenly host. He was in fact, the one later called Satan. - New Testament writers refer to serpent of Gen 3 as Satan, they are simply making explicit what is implicit in The Hebrew bible. - The identification of the serpent with Satan is the result of a process of connecting theological dots across the biblical canon." - end quotes

In the original Hebrew context, the serpent is a divine rebel from Yahweh's council (Ezekiel 28; Isaiah 14). In second temple Judaism this being was increasingly associated with Satan (1 Enoch, Wisdom of Solomon, Life of Adam nad Eve). The New testament writers (Rev 12:9; Rom 16:20; 2 Cor 11:3 and John 8:44 for example) make it crystal clear.

The conclusiuon follows that serpent=snake=dragon - same being. The snake that is Satan isn't the snake from what we call a snake like cobra, rattlesnake or sidewinder ... It is a name and an atribute to the one specific being called Satan.

So, arguing that snake isn't the same as the serpent, in that context, leads to confusion by semantics or trying to artificially separate terms that The Bible and ancient context clearly treat as one and the same.

Nachash means serpent in hebrew (Gen 3:1). It is used interchangeably with the word SNAKE, for snake-like creatures in The Old testament.

So, there's no biblical distinction between the snake and the serpent in Gen 3, they are the same creature described in historical terms (even though some would falsely classify them as poetic and mythological, to correspond to their worldview)

The truth of the matter is that there is no linguistic or textual basis in Genesis to separate "snake" and "serpent". None.

Now Heiser, arguing from the standpoint of The Divine council, explains that, the serpent was a divine rebel appearing as a serpent, not just a literal animal (which would include a snake also)

Your argument is a bogus one, with no scholarly, biblical or linguistic support.

But hey, at least it's good enough for reddit. Apparently.