The Bible does not really state a specific cosmology, as is even acknowledged by people trying to find one in the Bible:
The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated
So how come many claim the Bible teaches the world is flat and the heaven is a dome above the earth? They follow a simple procedure:
... so it must be pieced together from scattered passages.
Right. We just pick a few words all across the Bible, and there we have Biblical cosmology. Context and interpretation be damned. This short article will not lower itself in trying to argue those texts with them who fully believe this is a valid methodology. We leave that to Sir Isaac Newton (Matthew 24:29). But it just follows the same methodology to arrive at the opposite conclusion.
The favorite choice phrases for the people who claim the Bible teaches that the earth doesn't move:
Case proven. Let's now argue the opposite case and claim the Bible teaches that the earth moves:
The idea that before modern science people, especially Christians of course, believed the earth was flat, is an invention from the 19th century. But about every schooled individual in the Middle Ages believed that the earth was spherical. As the excellent Wikipedia article on the Flat Earth mythology says:
the Historical Society of Britain listed this modern belief in regard to the medieval era as the number one in its compendium of the ten most common historical illusions.
Sailing ships descend below the horizon. A simple observable fact that means that the idea of a spherical earth is within most people's grasp. But let us not be discouraged by that, and find the Bible verses that so clearly say the earth is flat. The following are cited in support for this statement:
Case proven. Let's now argue the opposite case and claim the Bible teaches that the earth is not flat:
It might be interesting to note that the Hebrews had no separate word for sphere, a three dimensional circle. Despite our opponents claiming it had. It seems the Hebrew word for circle also has the meaning of sphere.
Who knows what the Hebrew writes thought when thinking about the firmament? Dr. Robert M. Price and Reginald Finley Sr!
They must have been thinking of something like a giant version of the Astrodome. The “firmament,” as the very word, containing the element “firm,” implies, the underlying Hebrew denotes a solid dome of metal or crystal.
Solid dome of metal, well there you have it. And here some Bible verses to support the view:
And we don't have a list of Bible verses that assert there isn't a solid iron dome above our heads. For the very simple reason that the above verses don't claim there is a solid dome. This is read into the text.
I suggest interested readers to read Is the raqiya‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? by “James Patrick Holding”:
... the description of the raqiya‘ is so equivocal and lacking in detail that one can only read a solid sky into the text by assuming that it is there in the first place. One can, however, justifiably understand Genesis to be in harmony with what we presently know about the nature of the heavens.
The article proves that the Hebrew word raqiya`, which is translated by firmament in the King James, is not really defined in the Bible. The translation expanse would be a better one.
It's already clear in Gen. 1:8 where the firmament is called heaven:
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Birds fly in the heavens for example, clearly indicating that it was not solid. The same happens in Gen. 1:10 where the dry land is called earth:
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
As James Patrick Holding says in another place:
By itself this verse tells us virtually nothing about the nature of the earth and seas.
And the nature of heavens. The Bible isn't a shortcut to scientific knowledge. All we can conclude on the use of the word raqiya' is therefore:
We therefore argue that raqiya‘ is intended rather to refer to that which serves to ‘separate the earth from all that is beyond it’, (that is, what we call the atmosphere, and interstellar space) and that because no differentiation is made otherwise, there is no reason why Genesis can not be read to permit a description of the heavens and the natural order as we know it.
This question is actually irrelevant. In case of the Bible we have to distinguish between the secondary authors, which were humans living in specific times and the primary author, which is God. For all we know the secondary authors might have believed the world was flat.
I personally doubt the secondary authors believed that. As soon as people start to think, one of the first “discoveries” is that the earth isn't flat. As Abraham came from an advanced astronomical culture, the Sumerians, they might have possessed the knowledge of the spherical nature of the earth and Abraham might have taken that with him and passed that on to his children. But I would agree this is speculation.
But it is irrelevant what the secondary authors believed. The Bible is written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. It is God who wrote the Bible, 2 Tim. 3:16 and 2 Pet. 1:21, and who has made sure we possess the Bible in accurate copies. These secondary authors did not completely realise and understand the full meaning of what they wrote, 1 Pet. 1:10-11.
Because God is the primary author, the Bible is infallible. Even in the verses where it describes the cosmos. Note that in many verses our opponents like to cite the Bible isn't speaking about the globe, but about people and kingdoms. But in the few verses that it does, it is reliable.
But the Bible isn't written in such a way that it will serve as a shortcut to scientific knowledge. Sometimes, with hindsight, we see that the Bible was correct and we understand the full meaning of a verse in scripture. See for example how the common phrase “stretched out the heavens” is currently understood by creation scientists. But deriving an essential correct cosmological model is deliberately not possible.
Point proved. I think. In case you want to see a more in depth look at the matter, see What Shape is the Earth In? by J.P. Holding.