A lot of this discussion is questioning if the text is being read for what is says, or if we read into the text what we want it to say.
And a quick read-through of the article you linked to demonstrates that he had no valid argument, and is simply upset and unwilling to give the Bible any credibility for presenting cosmological truth. IOW, he "wants" the Bible to have no credibility, so he summarily dismisses any claims that would give the Bible validity.
Galileo concluded that the Earth must be spherical simply be seeing some of Jupiter's moons orbitting around Jupiter, and extrapolating his understanding.
In the second century B.C., Eratosthenes observed that sunlight hit the Earth at different angles depending on your location. So when the Sun was directly overhead in one city, it was at an angle in another city. And in fact, he was able to very accurately calculated the circumference of the (spherical) Earth 2200 years ago.
And you think nobody else was able to notice those same things in Isaiah's day? Or that God wasn't smart enough to know He created a spherical Earth, and relay that to Isaiah? I'm beginning to think you don't even believe in God.
Here's an argument against your understanding of Job teaching a spherical earth: https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html
So this is what you do, huh?
Whenver someone makes an argument, or presents a position, you simply do a "Google search" to find someone ELSE's argument against it.