Like most ancient peoples, the Hebrews believed the sky was a solid dome with the Sun, Moon, planets and stars embedded in it

The Copernican Revolution of the 16th century led to reconsideration of these matters. In 1554, John Calvin proposed that "firmament" be interpreted as clouds.[12] "He who would learn astronomy and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere," wrote Calvin.[12] "As it became a theologian, [Moses] had to respect us rather than the stars," Calvin wrote. Calvin's doctrine of accommodation allowed Protestants to accept the findings of science without rejecting the authority of scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament


In 1584, Giordano Bruno proposed a cosmology without firmament: an infinite universe in which the stars are actually suns with their own planetary systems.[16] After Galileo began using a telescope to examine the sky, it became harder to argue that the heavens were perfect, as Aristotelian philosophy required. By 1630, the concept of solid orbs was no longer dominant.[17]

.
Since no one has managed to respond to the OP after 3 pages (while pretending to have responded) I'll post it again, with more material:
.
.
Anybody who gives the flat earth idea the slightest amount of critical examination will realize that it's complete balderdash.  
.

For at least some, their ignorance is willful and impudent, therefore quite repulsive.
.

This cracks me up. No one said it's necessary but holding to globe earth won't save you? LOL! This contradictory and unproven theory, as you call it, is the globe earth theory correct? The enemy is the Devil correct? Globe Earth is of the Devil according to you. You are saying this won't save a person who holds this opinion. There is no difference between either way of expressing it. You are a Dogmatic Flatearthist. You believe FE is a necessary aspect of faith. The way you just tried to hide it is silly.

It only has Biblical roots if you don't understand allegory and you are trying to distort Scripture.

The only reason it's debatable is because the FE's are trying to destroy all credibility of the Church, so they try to tie it into the Catholic Faith. 

There are few that one can point to it being their opinion. Lactantius is the only one which claims it's a matter of faith. St. Basil and St. Augustine explicitly say this topic is not in Scripture and is not worthy of serious thought. No one's saying they were ignorant. The ones who did hold the FE opinion seemed to hold it not as a matter of faith, but as the common opinion where they were. Like I said though, there weren't that many who wrote about it.
The only reason it's debatable is because the FE's are trying to destroy all credibility of the Church, so they try to tie it into the Catholic Faith. They get Catholics to believe in it by exaggerating the importance among the Fathers and twisting Scripture to attempt to make it a religious matter. There's a reason why this subject was not brought up for about 1500 years.

At the end of the day, I want to know the truth about this matter, but instead of real experiments that prove their thesis, you get a lot of rhetoric and false evidence (interpreted to support their theory due to simple confirmation bias).  Perhaps the globe earthers don't go out of their way to prove this because they assume that it's true and doesn't need proof.  So they do a lot of "it's just clear to anyone who has eyes" type of stuff ... that I find decidedly unconvincing.

I was just saying that the Fathers who did see the Bible as teaching Flat Earth were not ignorant ... and the Bible CAN credibly be interpreted that way.  At no point have I said that it's de fide or otherwise indisputable.