There are a few arguments floating around in the internet that attempt to prove that the Bible holds a flat-earth position. The verse that is often the center of the discussion is Isaiah 40:22, specifically concerning the part that says, "the circle of the earth." The reason for this i am uncertain; however, it is often the case that unbelievers tend to strike what they feel is most convenient for them. But what are the arguments that they have been known to use in an attempt to prove that the Bible holds a flat-earth position?
They didn't know better
It is argued that the flat-earth theory or position was popular "back then." From this they claim that since this is true, this must also be true for the Biblical authors. Anyone who is good with logic—or at least logical enough—can see the fallacy engraved therein. It does not follow that just because some people considered the earth flat, that everyone did. Otherwise, how is it that many others "back then" were proposing a spherical earth? Deliberately placing the people of the past on a level of pure incompetence and claiming that they were ignorant is illogical (i.e. begs the question) and leaves you with the burden of proof.
Circle = flat ("circle" in Isaiah 40:22)
Second apparently common argument is that circle means flat. However, no matter what the case, it is absurd to even consider that the Biblical authors, who were used to mountains, hills, et cetera, would ever consider the earth to be wholly flat. It at least bore some shape other than "flat." Concerning Isaiah 40:22 specifically, the whole, relative phrase is "circle of the earth." "Circle of the earth" can also mean the equator[*] [*]—it is logical to assume this over a wholly flat earth.
Christians in the past have supported the flat earth theory
There are some out there who bring up Christian converts, like Cosmas Indicopleustes (and perhaps even Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius), et cetera, to show that Christians back then believed in a flat earth. However, that is irrelevant; the matter isn't whether or not a few—and if you really do the research, you'll see just how little there were (i can count them on one hand)—Christians believed in a flat earth, the matter is whether or not the Bible teaches and promotes a flat earth. Likewise, it is irrelevant if there are Christians today who believe in a flat earth. After all, some Christians believe in the theory of evolution—does that mean the Bible teaches and promotes the theory of evolution? It's not about what a Christian believes, it's about what the Bible teaches.
The earth is firm, fixed and immovable
Personally, i don't really know how the verses that mention that the earth is firm, fixed and immovable prove a flat earth—if anyone can point that out to me, that'd be great. But i should mention that almost always when mentioned in the Bible, what is meant by the phrase "the earth" is merely dry ground, not the planet.
The great tree, the tall mountain and what-have-you
Sadly, further attempts are seen that try to point out verses where the arguer believes provides Biblical evidence for a flat earth. The ever-so-common verses from the Book of Daniel (i.e. Daniel 4:10–11), the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 4:8) and the Revelation of John (e.g. Revelation 1:7) (and Who knows what else) are referenced. Using Daniel 4:10–11 implies that the person deliberately took things out of context just to make their claim. If anyone were to read Daniel chapter 4, the king who envisioned such a great tree had envisioned it within his own dream, of which only Daniel could interpret. In a dream things can be as wild as they want to be.
Even if the world is flat, it is physically impossible to see all kingdoms and their glory from a very tall mountain (referring to Matthew 4:8). That is, unless of course what was declared "all kingdoms" back then was actually visible from where they were standing. But it is not impossible if you are in the spirit, as you would no longer bear the limitations of the physical self. It is not unheard of or uncommon for Jesus to transfigure or "leave the body." But why on top of a mountain? I don't know, but it is illogical to make a statement that implies that humans have about 100 times better eye sight than, say, an eagle. It is much more logical if they were in the spirit or if "all kingdoms" was whatever was visible on top of that mountain.
As for Revelation 1:7, to conclude that the earth is flat from that verse is perhaps more than a false dilemma. It is practically the same as saying that the cloud he was (is) riding on is immobile. When in the Gospels Jesus says that there will be two but only one of those two will be taken, that obviously implies that the angels that are taking the saved are traveling to where those who are saved are located. It is not unheard of for a king to engage a battle with his men, why should we expect all the angels to leave Jesus's side? After all, isn't Jesus the one that will be declaring, "Yes, he (or she) is written in the Book of Life"?
Four corners of the earth
First we have heard many trying to prove that the Bible promotes a flat and round (circular) earth, and now we have an attempt in trying to Biblically prove a flat and square earth? I get the impression that unbelievers will consider just about anything just to show that the Bible is flawed. What can "four corners of the earth" mean? It is a false dilemma to say that it can only mean that the earth is flat. Rather than considering perhaps North, South, East and West (Revelation 7:1—why would they mention the four winds in the same context?), or that it is metaphoric for "all parts of the planet,"—which are far more practical—we should assume it means a flat earth? A flat earth does not follow from "the four corners of the earth;" it is impractical. Also, it seems a bit like sub-consciously the unbeliever is assuming that the Biblical authors were stupid or not that bright.
What else?
Practically, all the other arguments for a Biblical flat earth that i have seen are more absurd than the ones listed here. Therefore i'm not even going to bother trying to refute them. However, if i do find one that is at least better than the ones listed here, i will amend this article.
