A common objection raised by critics against the Bible is that it teaches a view that promulgates a "flat earth" and contains other primitive cosmological/natural data like a solid, domed sky.

We begin with a bit of groundwork. It should be understood that the Hebrews, like all ANE cultures, obviously lacked the scientific terminology we use to describe things today. We should not expect descriptions of "tectonic plates" or of "molten lava".

There are a few words that indicate to critics that the earth is on top of some sort of supporting system. Let's start with "foundations" -

> Ps. 104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.
> 2 Sam. 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.
> Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
> Zech. 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.

Ps. 104:9 uses this word: makown. This word, used only 17 times in the OT, has the connotation of a living place or "home". Clearly this has nothing to do with physical foundations.

2 Sam. 22:16 uses mowcadah. This word occurs only 13 times in the OT. Clearly we have something of a mixed bag here. We have something that can be seen as physical, obviously, but we also do not have anything to indicate exactly how this mowcadah acts as a "foundation" for the items in question.

Job 38:4 uses yacad. This word seems inclined to the idea of "foundation" in both an abstract "beginning" sense and a physical "building" sense.

Zechariah's word: yecuwdah. This word appears only 5 times in the OT, 3 times in Zechariah. Zechariah's word-choice in 12:1 may have been influenced by the parallel and equally-spaced usages in his book rather than by any notion of what the physical structure of the earth was.

These words offer no necessary proof - much less sufficient detail - to assume the idea of an earth with unmoving roots.

But what about our other word, "pillars"? 1 Sam. 2:8 uses matsuwq, and it is used only TWICE in the OT, here and 1 Sam. 14:5. Here, it seems, there is no indication of physical pillars necessary at all. At the very least the data is insufficient to decide one way or another.