"I had to laugh at this one. if you steatch out a flat surface infinately distance is no longer definable. If you have a sphere it comes right back to you."
Again, if you stand at the equator and head due West you will never stop heading due West. You will keep going. East and West are infinitely far apart. However, if you stand at the equator and head due North, you will eventually reach the North Pole. Once you pass it you will begin heading due South. North and South, then, on a globe with a North/South oriented axis, are a definable distance apart. East and West aren't.
On the circle of the earth thing, are you serious? "It doesn't say sphere." Was there even a Hebrew word for sphere? Obviously, sitting on the circle of the earth indicates that the earth is not flat.
Of course, I see you didn't address my points about the water cycle and gravity.
To address your points:
First, the sun moving comment. How many times have you heard statements and questions like these: "The sun is peaking over the horizon." "What is the position of the sun in the sky?" "The sun is directly overheard." "The sun is at 3:00." "Then out came the sun and dried up all the rain." "The sun is really bright today." "How much longer until the sun goes down." Now, all of these statements are, in an absolute sense, incorrect. However, we, as people who understand that the solar system is sun-centered, still make them frequently. Why? Because we are speaking in a relative sense. Relative to our perspective (though we know the earth revolves around the sun) the sun moves through our sky. It rises in the east and sets in the west. Thus, as we observe the movement of the earth around the sun (absolute sense) we see the sun move through our sky (relative sense). If a person wrote a book today describing the sun as moving through our sky, would that prove the author was ignorant of the fact that the earth revolves around the sun? Obviously not since we are educated of that fact.
Now, to the quote from 1 Chronicles, the text says, "the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." It's not talking about not moving in any way, shape, or form but rather to the stability of the earth. I could say, the earth shall not move out of it's current rotation around the sun.
Now, to your ends of the earth point I will quote another usage in scripture. Isaiah 41:5 - "The isles saw it, and feared; the ends of the earth were afraid, drew near, and came." Is this text referring to the literal, physical dimensions of the earth, or to faraway nations. The phrase "ends of the earth" are used quite frequently in scripture, and again it is also used by modern man who is well aware of the fact that the earth is not flat.
The text from Genesis seems to support the idea of a vapor canopy that surrounded the earth before the flood, which many creation scientists believe existed.
It's disheartening to see people run to extremes. A literal view of the scriptures doesn't mean that every single word is taken as we literally today in our society understand it. A literal view of the bible means this: 1) we believe the bible to be true and 2) we take the bible literally where we can, understanding that it also has figurative language as well. For example, "he shall grow up before him as a tender plant." Obviously Jesus Christ wasn't a literal plant, but is compared to a tender plant. God is plain and literal in creation, and we should beleive Him literally here. Also, Paul believed and preached literal creation and based doctrine on this (original sin in Romans 5), so if Paul misinterpreted the bible in terms of creation, what else did he misinterpret?
