A question is not ridiculous just because it poses an inconvenience for you. As I replied to you in the other thread…
The valid point here, to spell it out for you, is that the Bible does in fact reflect the flat earth and domed firmament cosmology of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. Scholars would agree. The only reason that you argue otherwise is that the Greeks have established that the earth is spherical for two millennia and half a millennia ago Galileo successfully argued against the then prevailing geocentric theology, and established that the earth revolves around the sun.
So over that past hundreds of years, theology has made its peace with the counterintuitive but scientifically established fact of heliocentrism. You do not feel the ground move, yet it does rotate and revolve. You can thank science for that understanding, or choose to ignore it at the cost of joining the looney flat earthers, many of whom base their belief, with solid textual justification, on the scriptures you yourself referenced.
In his letter to the Duchess Christina, Galileo spoke of those in the church who on the basis of these verses held fast to heliocentrism:
First they have endeavored to spread the opinion that such propositions in general are contrary to the Bible and are consequently damnable and heretical. …To this end they make a shield of their hypocritical zeal for religion. They go about invoking the Bible, which they would have minister to their deceitful purposes. …Contrary to the sense of the Bible and the intention of the holy Fathers, if I am not mistaken, they would extend such authorities until even purely physical matters - where faith is not involved - they would have us altogether abandon reason and the evidence of our senses in favor of some biblical passage, though under the surface meaning of its words this passage may contain a different sense. … For Copernicus never discusses matters of religion or faith, nor does he use argument that depend in any way upon the authority of sacred writings which he might have interpreted erroneously. He stands always upon physical conclusions pertaining to the celestial motions, and deals with them by astronomical and geometrical demonstrations, founded primarily upon sense experiences and very exact observations.
These words are amazingly relevant to the YEC debate. You cannot dismiss @jammycakes point that measurement, “very exact observations”, is required to honestly present reality. Science first established that the earth moves, and it is science which has demonstrated that the earth is ancient.