These verbal connections (with the exception of the "seraph" link) are transparent in the Old Greek and thus easily available to the NT authors (personally I suspect Rev 12:9 adopts this conflation). (6/6)

Whether we credit Isaiah himself with this edit, as conservatives may want, or the last hands to edit the book, with conventional redaction critics, in the finished book 65:25 motivates a conflationary reading of the serpents in Gen 3 & Isa 27. (5/6)

It looks a lot like verses which do not allude to Gen 3 in their original version, because they use different snake-words (11:6 & 30:6) have been edited to conform them to Gen 3. (4/6)

So if one looks up every occurrence of "nāḥāš" in Isaiah, one gets the Leviathan dragon-serpent at 27:1, the seraph-parallel serpent at 30:6, and the Gen 3 serpent at 65:25. (3/6)

There is a similar doublet of Isa 14:29 with 30:6; in 14:29 we have Hebrew "nāḥāš," the same snake-word in Gen 3, instead of an alternative snake-word in 30:6. Intriguingly, this parallels "nāḥāš" to the "flying seraph." (2/6)

Not a peep from the manuscripts that usually give us the Lucianic recension where it is different from Old Greek. Could it be the Kaige? I have to say, I’ve gotten really interested in these phantom recensions for which we have so little evidence about what they read. (4/4)

But though Jerome and manuscript 710 agree on the readings for those two, they disagree on Aquila. Jerome says he has ἰχώρ, “discharge”, while 710 says he has ἀκρεμών, “sprout.” Clearly one of the other recensions is coming in under Aquila’s name for one of these. (3/4)

This variant is also reflected in Targum Jonathan. What’s interesting to me is that there are “too many translators” in the Greek tradition. Old Greek has νεκρὸς, “dead one,” Symmachus has ἐκτρωμα, "miscarriage,” Theodotion is on the other side with βλαστός, “sprout.” (2/4)