Are you people only interested in arguing your points with no real interest in learning of the Truth of the Bible?
Let's go back a little bit and take a look at this "truth of the Bible".
You quoted a verse from Isaiah, considered it a statement referring to the shape of the earth and asked who he would know that without divine revelation.
"God is enthroned above the circle of the earth; its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like thin cloth and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Let's take a look.
1. The term in question, "chugh" can be used to describe a sphrerical object. It can also be used to desribe a flat, round object. Circles
are flat, after all. So this is not a unambiguous referral to a spherical earth.
2. Other concepts in this context, even in direct context, hint at a flat earth. For example: the heavens that are "spread out like a tent". A tent is raised as a cover over a flat piece of ground, not around a three-dimensional object.
3. Even if this was a referral to a spherical earth... how could the author know this.
3a. First option: in the same way that the later known philosophers did: by observation and conclusion. There are several ways to conclude a spherical earth that would be be available at any date.
3b. Second option: the author wasn't the first, nor even early in this conclusion. There is evidence that parts of the book of Isaiah, especially from verse 40 onwards, weren't written until a much later date. (BTW, your date for Isaiah is already about a century early. But I think you won't fix that either.)
So there are a number of reasons you have been presented now that allows a skeptic to doubt the "divine revelation" of a spherical earth to the author of Isaiah.
Will you pause and consider any of them?
Or will you fall back to "you deny the truth of the Bible, and what about Anthony Flew? How do you explain that incest is bad?"
