The problem with "eagles" and "unicorns" is that they rest on questionable (especially Latin) translations, reflecting the imaginary world of the translatorsrather than the authors. By such standards you may also assume that the Bible counts spiders or mice among "reptiles," bats among "birds" or whales among "fish"... But actually the zoological taxonomy changed over time; it is conventional now as it has always been, only the conventions and criteria changed; this of course causes many problems to translators. In Matthew 24:28, many modern translations (NRSV, Jerusalem Bible) use "vultures".
A most acute point!
It is the TRANSLATOR who does the trick of making the erroneous assumptions/beliefs/superstitions more palatable to the present day by CHANGING the offending term into an acceptable one through the language transformation itself. In this way the translator actually HIDES the mindset of the previous person's world view and belief system from the contemporary reader.
In reading a rather hefty tome about the history of the Mormon church by Richard Abanes I discovered this particularity. The ACTUAL grammer, spelling and syntax of Joseph Smith has been smoothed, polished, corrected and presented as beautifully "divine" and sentient by those who came after Smith with the agenda of presenting his mindset, education and "inspiration" in the best possible light. Shall we say they performed a "service"?
(Why not, then, the words in the Koran too? Or, the Bible?)
This is a magic trick of transformation which changes one thing into another and hides that any change (worth fretting over) has happened at all.
That is the point I wish to make.
Most bible readers just shrug off the fact that thousands of hands/minds have had a go at the particular wording of their beloved translations and completely ignore (on purpose) the politicking and ideology that went with it. Consequently, an evangelist can argue the fine points of his theology by focusing laser-like on the "actual" (sic) word choice of the writer in proving his point!! What ridiculous hubris!!
Theology stands (and falls) by word choices. Hence, the word choice of a translator is the be-all/end-all of Theology itself!
I can't emphasize this enough.
How can anybody ever be confident of an interpretation when the words they are weighing and sifting are but the debris of a thousand minds???