I refuse to believe that biblical sources are wrong.
So you claim is based entirely upon religious nonsense, not any form of rational thought or evidence.
I feel that biblical cosmology as well as cosmologies of the ancient people all over the world cannot be all made up and be all wrong.
It isn't. Firstly note that not all ancient cultures had a flat Earth cosmology.
For a small region of Earth, it is actually a good approximation.
Take the current RE model.
Put Earth as the reference frame.
Take out the planets as wanderings which couldn't be explained.
Project the sun and other stars and moon onto a celestial sphere centred on Earth (the parallax and proper motion was negligible).
Have the sun and moon follow a path along the celestial sphere, corresponding to the orbit of the moon and the sun "orbiting" Earth instead of reality of Earth orbiting the sun.
Have the celestial sphere rotate instead of Earth.
Remove all of Earth except a small portion, potentially no more than a few hundred km wide.
Now flatten that part of Earth.
Now you have a simple model which is quite comparable to ancient models.
This models matches what the ancients see.
The sun sets because it goes below Earth.
They don't have issues with maps because they are only dealing with a small area and can't map all that accurately anyway.
They don't have issues with variations in time, e.g. the time of sunset, as they can't measure it accurately.
These ancient models, when noted to be an approximation for a small region, can actually match fairly well to the modern RE model.
What they don't match to (pretty much at all) is the modern FE model.
This is because the modern FE model has to deal with the entire Earth.
At this scale Earth cannot be represented as a flat surface without significant distortion.
With this large region we know that the sun is always above somewhere on Earth, so they can't have the sun set by going below Earth.
They have time zones so they need to invent something to explain it.
If you want to believe in a model that is close to the ancient FE models, that would be the round Earth model, not the modern FE model.
the fact that you leave no room for alternate possibility is pretty stupid in my opinion.
So you think believing something purely on religious reasons and refusing to accept the possibility of being wrong is perfectly fine, while believing things based upon evidence is "stupid"?
I am open to alternate possibilities, but they need to explain reality.
If they are contradicted by reality, I will stick with reality, not the fantasy model.
Being open minded doesn't mean accepting whatever nonsense people spout. That would be being stupid and gullible.
If you can provide a model which can explain reality better than the current RE model I will accept it.
If all you can do is make baseless assertions without dealing with reality at all, I won't accept it.
I am open minded, not gullible.
I'm willing to change my mind if truth will be presented to me
You mean like the truth already presented in this thread?
It seems you are more willing to reject the truth and stick to your religious convictions.
This also directly contradicts your prior claims of refusing to accept the Bible is wrong.
All the available evidence shows Earth is round.
My personal favourite is the existence of 2 celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart, which you can circle.
For a Flat Earth, that requires 2 straight lines to intersect twice (once for each pole) after some finite distance.
This is physically impossible.
Instead, it requires Earth to be round.
Sure, it could be a double cone instead of a sphere, but it must be round.
Will you accept this truth?
the physical world that you know off, the earth with its seven continents is just a tiny grain of sand
Yes, Earth with its 4 continents is tiny in this massive universe with countless galaxies, each with countless stars, each with some planets.