Kind of. But not exactly.
I am NOT saying that the Bible makes valid scientific claims about planet earth being flat and not moving. I would just remind some participants that when one sees the word earth in an Old Testament passage, it is usually a translation of the Hebrew word ERETZ, which is usually translated as "land", "nation", "country", "region", or even "wilderness", such in various as with various place names in the KJV. ERETZ in Hebrew is actually much comparable to the word earth in 1611 English: most speakers at the time of the King James Bible tended to associate earth with the ground they tilled and walked upon, NOT planet earth.
It is not surprising that since 1611 the predominant association with the word earth is planet earth----but we shouldn't presume that association in older English texts and certainly not in most translations of ancient and even modern Hebrew. Indeed, even today, the nation of Israel calls itself ERETZ YISRAEL ("Land of Israel" or "Nation of Israel") and nobody would ever translate the phrase as "Planet Israel"!
With that in mind, when the Bible describes the ERETZ as flat, is there anything "wrong" about saying that "the land is flat"? Moreover, the ancients were obviously familiar with lands which were NOT flat and hills/mountains [a single Hebrew word tends to apply to both English concepts]. Likewise, Iowans live in a place derided by travelers as boringly flat, yet nobody doubts that anthills rise up despite the flatness.
Besides, in daily life we are quite correct to think of our experience of planet earth as quite flat. After all, as we Iook towards the horizon, we see a flat earth that deviates from a "perfect flatness" by only about six or seven inches per mile. As a ratio of 1/2 of a foot per 5,280 feet, that is a deviation from absolute flatness of only about 1 in 10,560 feet, about 0.005 %. In that perspective, the working assumption of even a relatively flat planet earth works quite well---just as saying that the sun rises every morning is not really a false statement.
No doubt about it: ancient Hebrew cosmology is not up to modern day standards. Yet on the way to making that point a lot of today's writers make a lot of casual statements which are nearly as flawed as the ancient Hebrew's views.
Similarly, does the Bible say that planet earth is immobile? Again, most of the time the text is talking about the ERETZ, the land, and is there any doubt that even in our day we use the land beneath our feet as something we rely upon to be stable and immobile---despite our knowledge of the earth's rotation and the frequency of earthquakes and micro-earthquakes? The ancient also dealt with earthquakes, so were even they making false claims when describing the ERETZ (land) as "can't be moved"? No, many of the references to such were making observations similar to our own. Architects and engineers routinely refer (and depend upon) the earth beneath our feet as a reliably immobile foundation on which to build. That makes complete sense, today and in ancient times.
All of this serves to remind us of the dangers of literal assumptions and overwrought inerrancy doctrinal statements. It also makes things difficult for any writer who cares about veracity, precision, and potentially confusing the reader! Meanwhile, we need to always give ancient writers the benefit of the doubt and reasonable leeway of expression which we would wish for ourselves.