And they had a word for flat that they didn’t use to describe the earth.
The flat earth argument is still and always will be a lie promoted by those with an agenda to discredit Christianity and creationists.
These experts in linguistics just know what words should/could/would have been used.
What arrogance!
No, because they weren't writing a science book--their main interest wasn't in describing the shape of the earth. But when they referred to the shape of the earth in passing, they used words that implied a flat thing with edges. You have to go beyond what the Bible "simply says" to make it refer to a sphere in space.
The flat earth argument is still and always will be a lie promoted by those with an agenda to discredit Christianity and creationists.
See, here's the thing: I don't think it discredits Christianity at all that the Bible describes a flat earth. The important things to learn from Scripture have nothing to do with things like the shape of the earth, and they're no less valuable for the fact that the people who wrote them thought they were standing on a disk under a hard surface. You're the one who thinks it would somehow discredit Christianity to accept the fact that the Bible was written by people who didn't have a clear idea of the structure of the solar system.
As for discrediting creationists: I know creationists don't think the world is flat. What discredits them, in my eyes, is the way they reserve to themselves the right to decide which passages can be interpreted in light of current knowledge and which ones can't.