Today there is a lot of talk about shape-shifting Reptilians but it is certainly nothing new. They have a long rich history going back thousands of years. A good background of information on the history of Reptilians is at: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Reptilian-humanoid

Evoluion of dinosaurs and shape-shifting Reptilians The Greek word used for "transformed" means to physically transform

Demons

"The Hopi refer to a race of Reptilians called the Sheti, or Snake-Brothers, who live underground. The Cherokee and other American Indian peoples also refer to Reptilian races, as well as their origins in Atlantis The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans extensively speak throughout their history of beings such as Dragons (both physical and non-physical forms thereof), Dracul (devil-dragon humanoids), Vampires, Kappa, and others. The first Emperor of China, Huang-Ti, was said to be part Dragon, and was said to be born looking like a Reptilian.

....The Mayans speak of a Reptilian species, referred to often as "Iguana-Men", who descended from the sky to take control of their civilization, teaching them the art of pyramid building as well as demanding human sacrifice. Throughout the world, in apparently unconnected societies, the belief pervades that a Reptilian race lives beneath the Earth and interacts with the surface...The Reptilians were often described as having a caste hierarchy, in which the highest caste was winged. This correlates with information from current abductees, contactees and former government employees who have disclosed information regarding alien interaction with Earth-governments."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Reptilian-humanoid 

These terms represent significant theological concepts in the Old Testament or are terms that are important to understand in order to interpret the Old Testament.  As with any translation, there is often no precise equivalent of words across languages.  So a translation is always a provisional rendering of the communication of the original.  That simply suggests that care should be taken not to hang too much weight on single words in a specific translation.  Likewise, it suggests that an adequate understanding of a translation must also entail some rudimentary knowledge of the original language and its cultural and historical background, as well as the nature and purpose of the material in which it is used. That does not mean that everyone must become an expert in Hebrew in order to understand the Old Testament (although it might help!).  But it does mean that more needs to go into the effort to understand than just reading an English translation.

There are several factors that complicate trying to use English words to translate Old Testament Hebrew concepts and ideas.

1)  The sheer span of time between the earliest stages of the Old Testament (c. 1,000 BC) and the modern world makes it difficult to understand the meaning of some terms.  We simply do not know all the ranges of meaning of some terms, or the nuances of meaning they could take in different contexts. For example, the meaning of the word selah, often used in Psalms, has been totally lost even in Jewish tradition.

2)  The historical and cultural contexts in which languages function are radically different between the biblical world and our own.  Some terms, especially metaphorical ones, depend on a certain background of experience to communicate the meaning adequately. For example, the often-used metaphor of “water” as an object of conquest is nearly incomprehensible without understanding the role of water as a symbol of chaos and disorder in the ancient world (see Baal Worship in the Old Testament).

3)  Closely related to this is the understanding that single words often function in a particular literary context that establishes a “semantic field” in which the term takes on a specialized meaning.  Also, some authors may use a common word in a more specialized sense. This simply suggests that in some literary contexts a particular word may have a different range of meaning than in other contexts.  For example, the idea of “serve” is conceptualized differently in priestly sections of the Old Testament than it is in the prophetic literature.  And even within the book of Isaiah, the term “servant” takes on three different ranges of meaning in the three major sections of the book.

4)  Words in most languages tend to have wide ranges of meaning depending on how they are used.  While English tends to aim for precision in communication, Hebrew, as an Eastern language, depends far more on context and rhetorical shaping, as well as cultural and historical frames of reference, to carry the meaning of words.  Many Hebrew words have much wider possibilities for meaning and carry a built-in ambiguity that may invoke several levels of meaning at once. For example, the term ruach (spirit, breath, wind, movement) is often used with interplay of the various meanings, as in Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (Ezek 37).

5)  In a similar vein, some terms have become such huge theological concepts in the Old Testament from use within the community over centuries that they communicate far more than the single word itself could possibly mean.  For example, such words as torah, covenant, and chesed have become larger than life and must be heard against the entire confessional background of Israel’s Faith.

6)  The fact that Hebrew shares more of its worldview with the East than it does with Western ways of thinking further complicates understanding.  Often, the modes of thought of the Ancient Near East are dramatically different than our modern scientific and technologically oriented ways of viewing the world.  The assumptions of that way of thinking can easily lead us to misinterpret certain concepts.  For example, the English term “perfect” is often used to translate a Hebrew term (tamam).  However, while the term “perfect” is an attribute or quality term in English, the Hebrew word tamam is a relational term, meaning suitable or mature or appropriate.  Hebrew had no direct equivalent of the English word “perfect.”

7)  Two thousand years of Christian interpretation cast in radically different philosophical assumptions than was most of the Old Testament often causes us to hear the Faith of the early church when reading the Old Testament rather than hearing the Hebrew terms for what they communicated apart from that later accretion of meaning.  For example, “salvation” means something quite different in the Old Testament than it does in Christian doctrine.

None of this means that we must despair of ever understanding these terms.  But it does call for a careful and intentional effort in trying to hear what the biblical text communicates with these terms. We cannot just assume that a single English word used in translation says everything that needs to be said about the meaning.  This also suggests to us that some meanings that we have accepted as clear and normative, upon closer inspection of the Hebrew terms that lie behind them, may need to be reexamined in light of what the Hebrew words actually mean in context.

Demon, serpent, reptilian

 "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Indeed, has God said you shall not eat from any tree of the garden?' "And the woman said to the serpent, 'From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.' "And the serpent said to the woman, 'You surely shall not die: For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings." Now with those opening seven verses of Genesis Chapter 3, you have the fall of man. The bliss enjoyed by the creation ends at that point. Up to that moment, as we have learned, everything was "very good." The comment in Chapter 1 Verse 31 is a comment that stays in force until the fall. "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good."

This, then, is Satan. Satan, who takes over the body of a reptile and uses that body as a vehicle to have a conversation that plunges the entire universe into sin. Now the question is: Where did Satan come from? And how are we to understand his character and his work? Now Satan, . He is described in the Bible in careful detail. We are glad that we know about his origin. That's very important. We're glad that we know about his character. We're glad that we know about his work, because we want to understand all of that. It's important for us to know about his origin. It's important for us to know about how it was that he became a sinful creature and became the tempter. It's very important for us to know that, lest we think that God was the creator of evil. If we didn't know about the origin of evil in this personality called Satan and the other demons who fell along with him, it might contribute to some assumption that God, in fact, is the creator of evil.

Satan (Hebrew: השָׂטָן ha-Satan ("the accuser"); Arabic: الشيطان al-Shaitan ("the adversary") - both from the Semitic root: Ś-Ṭ-N) is an embodiment of antagonism that originates from the Abrahamic religions, being traditionally considered an angel in Judeo-Christian belief, and a Jinn in Islamic belief. Originally, the term was used as a title for various entities that challenged the religious faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible. Since then, the Abrahamic religions have used "Satan" as a name for the Devil

The Terms

These terms are alphabetized according to a simplified transliterated English.