I think you are reading things into the scriptures that aren't really there. All they say could just as easily fit with a round earth.
I was a teenager (15 at that time), when I first read the Bible, before my sister joined her church. I don't understand the bible that well at the time, and much of what I had learned between 15-20 was based on church interpretations and church traditions.
And then there was 14 (or 15) year hiatus, where I didn't touch the bible (mainly because my studies and then my jobs took higher priorities over religion).
In 2000 (I was 34, here), I started reading the bible again, at first as research for my personal website Timeless Myths on the section regarding to Joseph of Arimathea and the "Grail" for my Arthurian section.
Re-reading parts of the bible (for my website), I found myself re-reading the entire gospels. What I discovered was that my view have changed than when I was a teenager. I read the gospels with fresh mind, unfettered by Church teachings, just re-reading the bible as it is, and not what the church say. Being older, and having more experiences in life in general, and particularly being able to interpret literature without church interference, my thoughts on the bible and its contents have been revised.
It wasn't evolution vs creationism that made me agnostic, but the fact that I no longer believe in church teachings and the contradictions that I found in the so-called OT prophecies and signs were meant to be prophecies and signs of Jesus, weren't true.
Back in the days when I was a teenager, I simply took what the church taught me in regarding to the bible without question, without cross-referencing and with double-checking what I was reading on my own.
The first mistake that I saw had nothing to do with Genesis creation and evolution, but with Matthew's, I mean the gospel's quote (Matthew 1:23) and interpretation of Isaiah's sign (Isaiah 7:14), the one about Immanuel and the so-called virgin birth. As a teenager, I didn't question or double-check that the gospel quoted Isaiah 7:14, because I had assumed that the gospel was correct and the church teaching regarding to that passage.
To understand Isaiah's sign, I had to re-read the whole chapter (Isaiah 7, as well as Isaiah 8, since they are related), and what I found that the sign had nothing to with the gospel's messianic prophecy. The woman in the sign had nothing to do with Mary, and Immanuel had nothing to do with Jesus or with the messiah.
Matthew 1:23 had only focused on just one verse (Isaiah 7:14), but totally ignored the rest of the sign (7:14-25, but more specifically with 7:14-17). The whole chapter of Isaiah 7, had nothing to do with any messiah and the virgin birth, but it was about the war between Judah and the alliance of Israel and Aram, but the sign was actually about the Assyrian intervention in the war (Isaiah 7:14-17).
That's what got me started in revising the bible as the whole, made me rethink the OT & NT relation, particularly the messianic prophecy.
The way I see it, I don't think I was educated enough, as a teenager to deal with the bible unfettered and think independently from the church teachings.
I think I understand the bible these last 18 years now than I did as a teenager.
Back in my time, when I was working on Timeless Myths (1999 to 2006), I did a lot of reading, re-reading, double-checking and cross-referencing, something that I didn't do as a teenager, when I did believe in the bible.
My point is that view have changed since I was a teenager, and I do think I understand the bible better than I did as a teenager.
As to the round Earth vs flat Earth argument, the OT isn't science, so its view was that of flat Earth.
The “round” earth don't necessarily mean the Earth is spherical (or more precisely near spherical).
The Hebrew astronomy at that time, was based mostly on Babylonian astronomy, and they (Babylonians) also believed the Earth to be round, but round like a disk, not as a sphere.
A disk-shaped Earth is still “Flat Earth” concept, but geographically, with rounded boundary, like a coin having flat sides and rounded edge.
This disk-shaped Flat Earth is found in Job 26:
“Job 26:10” said:
10 He has described a circle on the face of the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.
So it view the "circle" or Earth as a disk floating on the water.
The Bible even has a passage where the wicked could fall off the edge should god shake the earth:
“Job 38:13 KJV” said:
13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?
“Job 38:13 NIV” said:
13 that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?
“Job 38:13 NRSV” said:
13 so that it might take hold of the skirts of the earth, and the wicked be shaken out of it?
“Job 38:14 NJPS” said:
13 So that it seizes the corners of the earth And shakes the wicked out of it?
No matter how you slice it or how translate it, if the Earth is spherical, then there are no edges, no ends, no corners and no boundaries; it would only have any one of these things (eg edges, ends or corners), if the Earth was "disk" in shape.
What you don't understand is that it was the Greek philosophers, starting with the 6th century BCE Pythagoras, who first thought the Earth was spherical in shape. But this concept of spherical Earth didn't hold traction until 4th century Aristotle and Greek astronomers of the Hellenistic period (a period which started after Alexander the Great's death in 322 BCE).
So in the 6th and 5th centuries BCE, the flat Earth concept was still very popular, and Pythagoras' original idea of spherical Earth weren't really known in the outside world, until Aristotle and Hellenistic astronomers.
So when Genesis, Psalms, Job were written, compiled and edited between 6th and 5th centuries BCE, they had no idea about the spherical Earth.
If anyone who don't understand the passages, it is you, rrobs.
