The Genesis 3 "serpent" Not An Actual Snake

[Paleouss]

Peace and Love to all my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ.

After learning that the biblical text never reveals the names of any fallen angel, ever. One quickly realizes that figurative language will be the rule when referring to the fallen angels within the Bible’s historical narrative. Therefore, the author of Genesis 3, for example, would never write the proper name of that “serpent of old”, i.e., Satan (Rev 12:9), but would use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to communicate who was in the garden with Adam and Eve.

1. The Holy Scripture refuses to give the personal proper name of any fallen angel, e.g., haś-śā-ṭān (“the-adversary”) is not a personal proper name but acts as a descriptive role in the Old Testament biblical text. It is used to describe not only one particular fallen angel, it also is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32).
2. In Genesis 3, the “serpent” has been revealed to us to be none other than that one angel (Eze 28, Matt 4:10) we have come to call “Satan” (Rev 12:9).
3. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would not expect when reading Genesis 3 that the Holy Scripture would name the third character that deceived Eve by personal proper name.
4. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would expect the Holy Scripture to use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to represent the third character that deceived Eve, for that is its method in the entire rest of the Bible.
5. If it is the expectation that the third character is not to be referenced by personal proper name and an imagery device is expected. THEN IT FOLLOWS that the reader should expect that the third character is not actually a literal snake, for an imagery device is expected as reference for fallen angels.
6. Snakes don’t talk.
7. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that (a) since snakes don’t talk; and (b) the Holy Scripture never gives the personal proper name of the fallen angels but gives only imagery, titles or roles as representation; and (c) Revelation 12:9 tells us the “Old Serpent” is that one fallen angel (Eze 28) we have come to call “Satan” (Matt 4:10); and (d) Ezekiel 28 tells us that Satan was in the garden of Eden (28:13) and cast out as profane from "the mountain of God" (Eze 28:16), which the garden of Eden is on; THEN the serpent in Genesis 3 is not an actual snake, not a possessed snake, but the actual fallen angel we have come to call “Satan”.

Coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent (nāḥāš), which is used in Genesis 3, was used in the ancient Hebrew culture as imagery that pointed to cosmic rebellion, entry of death, and ultimate moral ruin. It becomes more obvious that text like Genesis 3 uses nāḥāš as imagery representation and never intended the reader to think that Satan was, or transformed into, or possessed a literal snake.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)

 

[Deacon]

A Baptist theologian has written a short book on the topic of the serpent in the series: Short Studies in Biblical Theology.

The Serpent and the Serpent Slayer.
Andrew David Naselli.
2020. Wheaton, IL., Crossway Publishers. 158 pp.

"The serpent theme spans the entire Bible--from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. Let's start with what the Bible teaches about the serpent at the story's beginning. Genesis 3 teaches at least twelve notable truths about the snake." p. 33.

Rob

 

[Van]

Peace and Love to all my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ.

After learning that the biblical text never reveals the names of any fallen angel, ever. One quickly realizes that figurative language will be the rule when referring to the fallen angels within the Bible’s historical narrative. Therefore, the author of Genesis 3, for example, would never write the proper name of that “serpent of old”, i.e., Satan (Rev 12:9), but would use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to communicate who was in the garden with Adam and Eve.

1. The Holy Scripture refuses to give the personal proper name of any fallen angel, e.g., haś-śā-ṭān (“the-adversary”) is not a personal proper name but acts as a descriptive role in the Old Testament biblical text. It is used to describe not only one particular fallen angel, it also is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32).
2. In Genesis 3, the “serpent” has been revealed to us to be none other than that one angel (Eze 28, Matt 4:10) we have come to call “Satan” (Rev 12:9).
3. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would not expect when reading Genesis 3 that the Holy Scripture would name the third character that deceived Eve by personal proper name.
4. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would expect the Holy Scripture to use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to represent the third character that deceived Eve, for that is its method in the entire rest of the Bible.
5. If it is the expectation that the third character is not to be referenced by personal proper name and an imagery device is expected. THEN IT FOLLOWS that the reader should expect that the third character is not actually a literal snake, for an imagery device is expected as reference for fallen angels.
6. Snakes don’t talk.
7. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that (a) since snakes don’t talk; and (b) the Holy Scripture never gives the personal proper name of the fallen angels but gives only imagery, titles or roles as representation; and (c) Revelation 12:9 tells us the “Old Serpent” is that one fallen angel (Eze 28) we have come to call “Satan” (Matt 4:10); and (d) Ezekiel 28 tells us that Satan was in the garden of Eden (28:13) and cast out as profane from "the mountain of God" (Eze 28:16), which the garden of Eden is on; THEN the serpent in Genesis 3 is not an actual snake, not a possessed snake, but the actual fallen angel we have come to call “Satan”.

Coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent (nāḥāš), which is used in Genesis 3, was used in the ancient Hebrew culture as imagery that pointed to cosmic rebellion, entry of death, and ultimate moral ruin. It becomes more obvious that text like Genesis 3 uses nāḥāš as imagery representation and never intended the reader to think that Satan was, or transformed into, or possessed a literal snake.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)

Thanks for the thoughtful topic.

The NT certainly identifies the serpent of old as Satan, the devil. Now these may be titles, rather than a proper name, but "Satan" (Adversary) is close enough for me.

In the New Testament we find "serpent," "snake," and "viper." A brood of vipers or the offspring of vipers certainly points to humans whose minds have been deceived, poisoned if you will by the lies originating from Satan.

So on one side we have the "father of lies" and on our side we have "the Truth." Christ taught us to strive to stick to the Truth, and avoid the deception of lies.

The poisons of the serpent, injected into our minds, are falsehoods. The serpent asks, "Did God really say this?" And the deceived answer might be "maybe not." But the truth is of course YES!!

 

[David Lamb]

-I would say that "Satan" is certainly used as a name. For example:

NKJV Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' "

Yes, "Satan" has a meaning, "adversary", but so do all names in the Bible.

 

[Paleouss]

Peace to you Van. Grace and hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The NT certainly identifies the serpent of old as Satan, the devil. Now these may be titles, rather than a proper name, but "Satan" (Adversary) is close enough for me.

I agree. The NT started using these titles, roles, and imagery as names...as we do today.

In the New Testament we find "serpent," "snake," and "viper." A brood of vipers or the offspring of vipers certainly points to humans whose minds have been deceived, poisoned if you will by the lies originating from Satan.

Yes.

So on one side we have the "father of lies" and on our side we have "the Truth." Christ taught us to strive to stick to the Truth, and avoid the deception of lies.

The poisons of the serpent, injected into our minds, are falsehoods. The serpent asks, "Did God really say this?" And the deceived answer might be "maybe not." But the truth is of course YES!!

Thank you for your wisdom.

Peace to you brother

 

[Paleouss]

Grettings

-I would say that "Satan" is certainly used as a name. For example:

NKJV Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND HIM ONLY YOU SHALL SERVE.' "

Yes, "Satan" has a meaning, "adversary", but so do all names in the Bible.

You are correct on your point about the NT, but it doesn't counter my OP point.

To make sure you don't have my point wrong and the development of name backwards. The Hebrew word śā-ṭān didn't start as a personal proper name with a root that means "adversary"... it started as a word that meant "adversary" (OT) that then started being used as a name to identify a particular being (NT).

Just so we are both on the same page. I am pointing out the fact that the NT started using what were Hebrew words of title, role, and imagery (they were not personal proper names in Hebrew).

Evidence of the fact that the Hebrew word śā-ṭān is not an original name in Hebrew of that one fallen angel, the word is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32). All these verses are NOT a name for that one fallen angel.

I think if one would do any research at all, one finds that the Hebrew word śā-ṭān is not a personal proper name in the OT and by the NT, written in Greek, the trend of using the Hebrew word śā-ṭān within the Greek text as a name for one particular fallen angel was started.

So back to the OP, when approaching Genesis 3, if there is a fallen angel in the story then the expectation is that the personal proper name will not be given and only general words of roles, titles, or imagery is to be expected. In the case of Genesis 3, its imagery.

Peace to you brother.

 

[searchingtruths]

Peace and Love to all my brothers and sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ.

After learning that the biblical text never reveals the names of any fallen angel, ever. One quickly realizes that figurative language will be the rule when referring to the fallen angels within the Bible’s historical narrative. Therefore, the author of Genesis 3, for example, would never write the proper name of that “serpent of old”, i.e., Satan (Rev 12:9), but would use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to communicate who was in the garden with Adam and Eve.

1. The Holy Scripture refuses to give the personal proper name of any fallen angel, e.g., haś-śā-ṭān (“the-adversary”) is not a personal proper name but acts as a descriptive role in the Old Testament biblical text. It is used to describe not only one particular fallen angel, it also is used for human opponents as adversaries (1King 11:14, 23; 1Sam 29:4; 2Sam 19:22) as well as heavenly messengers in favor of God and sent from the Lord to obstruct (Num 22:22, 32).
2. In Genesis 3, the “serpent” has been revealed to us to be none other than that one angel (Eze 28, Matt 4:10) we have come to call “Satan” (Rev 12:9).
3. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would not expect when reading Genesis 3 that the Holy Scripture would name the third character that deceived Eve by personal proper name.
4. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that one would expect the Holy Scripture to use descriptive titles, roles or imagery to represent the third character that deceived Eve, for that is its method in the entire rest of the Bible.
5. If it is the expectation that the third character is not to be referenced by personal proper name and an imagery device is expected. THEN IT FOLLOWS that the reader should expect that the third character is not actually a literal snake, for an imagery device is expected as reference for fallen angels.
6. Snakes don’t talk.
7. THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS that (a) since snakes don’t talk; and (b) the Holy Scripture never gives the personal proper name of the fallen angels but gives only imagery, titles or roles as representation; and (c) Revelation 12:9 tells us the “Old Serpent” is that one fallen angel (Eze 28) we have come to call “Satan” (Matt 4:10); and (d) Ezekiel 28 tells us that Satan was in the garden of Eden (28:13) and cast out as profane from "the mountain of God" (Eze 28:16), which the garden of Eden is on; THEN the serpent in Genesis 3 is not an actual snake, not a possessed snake, but the actual fallen angel we have come to call “Satan”.

Coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent (nāḥāš), which is used in Genesis 3, was used in the ancient Hebrew culture as imagery that pointed to cosmic rebellion, entry of death, and ultimate moral ruin. It becomes more obvious that text like Genesis 3 uses nāḥāš as imagery representation and never intended the reader to think that Satan was, or transformed into, or possessed a literal snake.

Keep seeking God's truth as if it were hidden treasure (Prov 2:1-6)

Yes, it was literally Satan himself who beguiled Eve. He goes by many names many which are descriptive such as serpent - dragon - the adversary - he goes around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour - the Leviathan - the destroyer - he is referred to as God of this world, John 16:11 - he is referred to as Prince of this world - the devil - the evil one - Lucifer - Satan.

And

In traditional Christian interpretation, Satan is called both the "morning star" (or "day star") and the "son of the morning" (or "son of the dawn") based on Isaiah 14:12.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings @searchingtruths. Peace to you in our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for your wisdom.

He goes by many names

For the most part I agree with what you have said. Thank you for your contribution.

I wanted to nitpick on the quote above a little bit though, since it has to do with the topic of the OP.

I want to make a distinction, for the purpose of shining light on the point of the OP...

Two different statements that could lead to two different conclusions
1. Satan goes by many names, i.e, he uses many aliases.
2. The Bible NEVER gives the personal proper name of any fallen angel, ever. It only describes and refers to them by roles, titles, imagery, etc. The names it does use in the NT are simply general Hebrews words used in the OT of roles and titles.

Although as a general statement, #1 might be true. In regard to the Bible and how it refers to that one fallen angel, it doesn't seem to be very accurate. Number 1 might suggest that the Bible simply gives the names that "Satan" wants to go by. The second, #2, informs the reader that God does not allow the personal proper names of the fallen to be glorified by allowing them to be written in the Holy Scripture of God.

In my estimation, #2 is more accurate and has two very important implications.

A. When going into Genesis 3, I should expect there to be imagery, roles, or titles given to represent the third charcacter in the story since Revelation 12:9 tells us that the "serpent of old" is a fallen angel. Since I should expect roles, titles, or imagery, then when I get imagery of a "serpent" then I should treat it as imagery and not think it is a literal snake (which it seems you agree).

B. The second important implication has nothing to do with the OP, but I'll write it anyway. If God refuses to give any personal proper names in His Holy Scripture of any fallen angel. It seems to follow that since the Book of Enoch records the personal proper names of fallen angels then the is one reason of many to question the Book of Enoch and it not being of God.


Peace to you

 

[searchingtruths]

Greetings @searchingtruths. Peace to you in our Lord Jesus Christ. Thank you for your wisdom.

For the most part I agree with what you have said. Thank you for your contribution.

I wanted to nitpick on the quote above a little bit though, since it has to do with the topic of the OP.

I want to make a distinction, for the purpose of shining light on the point of the OP...

Two different statements that could lead to two different conclusions
1. Satan goes by many names, i.e, he uses many aliases.
2. The Bible NEVER gives the personal proper name of any fallen angel, ever. It only describes and refers to them by roles, titles, imagery, etc. The names it does use in the NT are simply general Hebrews words used in the OT of roles and titles.

the Bible never gives proper names of any of the fallen Angel but when reading you know it's speaking of one certain angel.

I disagree I believe that the Bible has given two proper names of fallen angels.

Although as a general statement, #1 might be true. In regard to the Bible and how it refers to that one fallen angel, it doesn't seem to be very accurate. Number 1 might suggest that the Bible simply gives the names that "Satan" wants to go by. The second, #2, informs the reader that God does not allow the personal proper names of the fallen to be glorified by allowing them to be written in the Holy Scripture of God.

Clearly the proper name Lucifer is not the king of Tyre. The king of Tyree was not a cherubim / an angel that covers The Mercy / seat the throne of God. Clearly the king of Tyre did not walk in the garden of God - did not walk the mountains of God. And clearly from from verse 12 on it is speaking of a specific fallen angel and his ruin of kingdoms and the punishment coming. Yet a proper name was given.

From what a Jewish person told me and I did a brief study on 10 or 15 years ago, that the name Satan was actually Satanael and was the leader of the group of Watchers ...... Satanael was not an adversary but actually working for God testing man.
Jews for Judaism | The Jewish View of Satan The Jewish View of Satan


AI Overview

The Jewish concept of Ha-Satan is a loyal heavenly prosecutor and messenger working under God’s direct authority, whereas the Christian concept of Satan is a fallen, rebellious angel and independent force of cosmic evil.
...…........................
The name Satan doesn't seem to be of "his own choosing" but a literal proper name used by the Hebrew Israelites which originally was Satanael - cut short by the Roman / English translators.
........................................
AI Overview

Satanail (also spelled Satanael or Sataniel) is a name for Satan or a fallen archangel found in apocryphal, Gnostic, and dualistic religious traditions.

What Does the Bible Say About Satanael? What Does the Bible Say About Satanael?

The Origin of Satan - World History Encyclopedia The Origin of Satan

In my estimation, #2 is more accurate and has two very important implications.

A. When going into Genesis 3, I should expec there to be imagery, roles, or titles given to represent the third charcacter in the story since Revelation 12:9 tells us that the "serpent of old" is a fallen angel. Since I should expect roles, titles, or imagery, then when I get imagery of a "serpent" then I should treat it as imagery and not think it is a literal snake (which it seems you agree).

Most do form images of snakes since a serpent is considered a snake. That is where the idea of an actual talking snake comes from.

B. The second important implication has nothing to do with the OP, but I'll write it anyway. If God refuses to give any personal proper names in His Holy Scripture of any fallen angel. It seems to follow that since the Book of Enoch records the personal proper names of fallen angels then the is one reason of many to question the Book of Enoch and it not being of God.

Yes indeed The Book of Enoch gives quite a few proper names of fallen angels - I have the book.

The Book of Enoch is included in the Dead Sea scrolls which is a part of the Hebrew Israelites texts was rejected by the church...... And there are a few other books rejected by the first Catholic Church translators that are a part of the Dead Sea scrolls not written by Enoch. It really boils down to it being their choice of what to keep and what to reject.

Peace to you

Likewise

 

[searchingtruths]

Correct the Bible never gives proper names of any of the fallen Angel but when reading you know it's speaking of one certain angel.

Clearly the proper name Lucifer is not the king of Tyre. The king of Tyree was not a cherubim / an angel that covers The Mercy / seat the throne of God. Clearly the king of Tyre did not walk in the garden of God - did not walk the mountains of God. And clearly from from verse 12 on it is speaking of a specific fallen angel and his ruin of kingdoms and the punishment coming. Yet a proper name was given.

From what a Jewish person told me and I did a brief study on 10 or 15 years ago, that the name Satan was actually Satanael and was the leader of the group of Watchers ...... Satanael was not an adversary but actually working for God testing man.
Jews for Judaism | The Jewish View of Satan The Jewish View of Satan


AI Overview

The Jewish concept of Ha-Satan is a loyal heavenly prosecutor and messenger working under God’s direct authority, whereas the Christian concept of Satan is a fallen, rebellious angel and independent force of cosmic evil.
...…........................
The name Satan doesn't seem to be of "his own choosing" but a literal proper name used by the Hebrew Israelites which originally was Satanael - cut short by the Roman / English translators.
........................................
AI Overview

Satanail (also spelled Satanael or Sataniel) is a name for Satan or a fallen archangel found in apocryphal, Gnostic, and dualistic religious traditions.

What Does the Bible Say About Satanael? What Does the Bible Say About Satanael?

The Origin of Satan - World History Encyclopedia The Origin of Satan


Most do form images of snakes since a serpent is considered a snake. That is where the idea of an actual talking snake comes from.

Yes indeed The Book of Enoch gives quite a few proper names of fallen angels - I have the book.

The Book of Enoch is included in the Dead Sea scrolls which is a part of the Hebrew Israelites texts was rejected by the church...... And there are a few other books rejected by the first Catholic Church translators that are a part of the Dead Sea scrolls not written by Enoch. It really boils down to it being their choice of what to keep and what to reject.

Likewise

 

[Ben1445]

Coupled with the fact that the Hebrew word for serpent (nāḥāš), which is used in Genesis 3, was used in the ancient Hebrew culture as imagery that pointed to cosmic rebellion, entry of death, and ultimate moral ruin. It becomes more obvious that text like Genesis 3 uses nāḥāš as imagery representation and never intended the reader to think that Satan was, or transformed into, or possessed a literal snake.

Just a thought,

Could it be that the reason the word is used that way in Hebrew culture is because that is the history that they were taught.

Why is an angel who is described so well compared to animals and not people or other angels?

“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.”

 

[Van]

Beside having identifying titles such as Satan (Advesary) Snake, Serpent and Viper, the creature of Genesis 3 is also referred to as the "Dragon." He is described as more (1) crafty, (2) shrewd and (3) pragmatic than any life God had created. The translation choices of translating "life" as beast or animal suggests he was not a manifestation of a spiritual entity into a form calculated to be seen as a "harmless" like-kind person. But that would be crafty, shrewd and pragmatic.

 

[Van]

Interpretive Translation Genesis 3:1 partial.
Now the "father of lies" was more "crafty, shrew and pragmatic, than any life of the created world which the LORD God had made.

 

[Van]

A wolf so to speak in sheep's clothing.

 

[Ben1445]

There is more being said than just “all life in the created world.” If it were the created world being spoken of, one could expect that the word (h0776) אֶרֶץ ’ereṣ would be used to describe the earth as it was in Genesis 1.
Instead, we find (h7704) שָׂדֶה śâḏeh, which is more specific than creation and does lend the interpretation to be accurately understood as animals of the field, where a serpent/ snake may be found.

Another thought, in any other appearance of Satan in Scripture after the fall, is Satan ever described as approaching on his belly as was promised in the curse?

Does Satan crawl around on his belly presently, or what is being said or what judgment is being pronounced when the serpent is told that “on his belly he will go”?

 

[kyredneck]

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.”

Snakes hide and wait and watch for their prey. Job 1 & 2:

And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? …​

In nature, nesting birds are particularly vulnerable to this tactic.

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings

Just a thought,

Could it be that the reason the word is used that way in Hebrew culture is because that is the history that they were taught.

I'm assuming you are suggesting that they were taught it was a word or roles, and it might have been, but it was also the actual name of that one fallen angel. In other words you are trying to build an argument for "progressive revelation".

Let me give an example for my clarity. Let's say I teach soccer. A new player comes one day and introduces himself. I introduce myself as Paleouss the coach. Every day after that the player refers to me as "Coach"; on the field, "Coach", runs into me at the grocery store, "Coach", runs in to me 20 years after being on the team, "Coach". That player has just turned my role into my name, to him my name is "Coach".

If we do a linguistic and textual study of the OT and the NT, we seemingly see something similar. In the OT, haś-śā-ṭān is used as reference to humans and faithful angels to describe their roles. This usage has nothing to do with that one archetypal fallen angel.

The only haś-śā-ṭān used in the OT to describe that one archetypal-fallen-angel is Job 1:6 and 2:1. Making a linguistic observation, one doesn't say "the David" or "the Abraham". Nor is Job 1:6, 2:1 using the Hebrew haś-śā-ṭān (the obstructer, apposed, accuser) as a personal proper name "the Satan".

We both agree that it is progressive revelation that this Job 1:6 individual is the archetypal fallen angel the NT has come to call "Satan". But of the two options, #2 would seem to be able to demonstrate it is true by linguistic and context studies and by the absence of any other names. #1, well, I'm not sure one can demonstrate that it is true (It falls to far into speculation).

1. haś-śā-ṭān is a word of role or title in the OT...but is actually, also, the personal proper name from creation of that one fallen angel.
2. haś-śā-ṭān is a word of role or title in the OT which later is used as a name in the NT...because God doesn't honor or glorify any fallen angel by giving his name within the biblical text.

Another thought, in any other appearance of Satan in Scripture after the fall, is Satan ever described as approaching on his belly as was promised in the curse?

Does Satan crawl around on his belly presently, or what is being said or what judgment is being pronounced when the serpent is told that “on his belly he will go”?

Your first argument was better. This clearly appears to ignore some steps in proper exegesis, i.e., Determine the Genre: identifying the literary style such as historical poetry and Establishing the historical-cultural background. See also the other thread, The Hebrew Intent Of An In-Concert Fall

ran out of time, sorry for any errors.


Peace to brother

 

[Paleouss]

Another thought, in any other appearance of Satan in Scripture after the fall, is Satan ever described as approaching on his belly as was promised in the curse?

Does Satan crawl around on his belly presently, or what is being said or what judgment is being pronounced when the serpent is told that “on his belly he will go”?

God tells the serpent “On your belly you shall go and ‘āpār (dust) you shall eat all the days of your life” (Gen 3:14). This is an ancient Hebrew poetic idiom that expresses total defeat, absolute subjugation, and deep disgrace. This can be affirmed through other scripture as well, such as (1) Micah 7:17, speaking of defeated nations, it says, "They shall lick the dust like a serpent; they shall crawl out of their holes like crawling things of the earth..."; (2) Isaiah 49:23, describing the total submission of Israel's enemies, it says, "With their faces to the ground they shall bow down to you, and lick the dust of your feet."; (3) Psalm 72:9, (Psa 72:9 NKJV) – “Those who dwell in the wilderness will bow before Him, And His enemies will lick the dust”.


Peace to you brother

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings to you

Clearly the proper name Lucifer is not the king of Tyre. The king of Tyree was not a cherubim / an angel that covers The Mercy / seat the throne of God. Clearly the king of Tyre did not walk in the garden of God - did not walk the mountains of God. And clearly from from verse 12 on it is speaking of a specific fallen angel and his ruin of kingdoms and the punishment coming. Yet a proper name was given.

A. The original Hebrew words are Helel ben Shahar, it is not a personal proper name but literally translates "shining one" "son [of]" "daybreak".

B. Then the Hebrew text was translated into Greek and Heōsphoros was used (literally "dawn-bringer"). It is not a personal proper name.
C. Then Jerome translated it into Latin and used a Roman astronomical term, lucifer, which means "light bringer". Jerome did not translate it as a personal proper name.

D. In 1382, John Wycliffe produced an English version and translated directly from Jerome's Latin. He retained the Latin word, "Lucifer" even though it was an English version and started the capitalization of the word.

Yes, Lucifer is a name of that one archetypal image of the profane we call Satan. However, it never was the actual personal proper name.

Peace to you

 

[Paleouss]

Greetings to you searchingtruths.

Yes indeed The Book of Enoch gives quite a few proper names of fallen angels - I have the book.

The Book of Enoch is included in the Dead Sea scrolls which is a part of the Hebrew Israelites texts was rejected by the church...... And there are a few other books rejected by the first Catholic Church translators that are a part of the Dead Sea scrolls not written by Enoch. It really boils down to it being their choice of what to keep and what to reject.

I could speak at length to this topic, but it's not part of my OP so I'll refrain. I'll just refer to my essay, Evil Spirits And Demons: An In Depth Look At Why The Book Of Enoch Should Be Questioned or for a condensed essay review by another author Can We Use 1 Enoch for Demonology?


Peace to you