And, mP, when you say: "You must understand that the translators have selected 'circle' so it would appear the Bible is accurate", you need to realize that many translations, almost as many who mention "circle" actually don't use the word "circle" in those texts. I don't know the exact reason but in some cases it is to be more generic or perhaps even poetic in the translation. Using your premise as a basis, I could argue that the translations that didn't use the word "circle" deliberately omitted it in order to conform to the common belief that Earth was flat and deny the reality that would have threatened their theology. After all, the Catholic church fought all efforts to suggest otherwise. Don't you think there would have been other religious contingencies that would have wanted the same?
So, to sum it all up, I'm not arguing anything in regards to the "inspiration" and the veracity of the Bible. That's a big leap I think some of you have made regarding my declaration against the suggestion that the Bible doesn't mention that the Earth is round. And I'm not suggesting that because the Bible may agree with reality in one instance that it is not riddled with fallacies or that it arrived at that reality correctly.