[csense]

The Bible's references to the earth's four corners, its "foundations", about a tree so high that it could be seen from the furthest reaches of the Earth, a mountain so high that the ends of the earth could be seen by someone on the mountain, that the earth is fixed and immovable, that the heavens are a "vault" etc. are totally consistent with a flat earth cosmology. (emphasis mine)

Without context, your opinion of these references is rather meaningless, but even taking them at face value, the two that are underlined actually suggest the relationship of a [raised] point on a curve, rather than a [raised point on a straight line.

[Jo Nuvark]

[...Without context, your opinion of these references is rather meaningless, but even taking them at face value, the two that are underlined actually suggest the relationship of a [raised] point on a curve, rather than a [raised point on a straight line...]

He may be speaking of the New Jerusalem which could be a cube or tetra hedron. The huge tree is probably a metaphor for Israel. It might be in Isaiah. Still... it's no fun without context.

[WildHorseCrash]

Without context, your opinion of these references is rather meaningless,

The context is that the bible's cosmology is consistent with that of the authors' contemporaries in Egypt and Mesopotamia--i.e., a flat earth surrounded with water covered by a vaulted heaven on which the sun, moon and stars traversed. What kind of context are you looking for?

but even taking them at face value, the two that are underlined actually suggest the relationship of a [raised] point on a curve, rather than a [raised point on a straight line.

True, they are consistent with a flat surface and with some curved surfaces. (I say some, because if the curve was steep enough, it would be inconsistent) However, they are wholly inconsistent with a raised point on an oblate spheroid, such as the Earth. Which is the point I am making.