I don't think I would be able to find such a thing, because I suspect the use of that term was introduced with Biblical literary criticism.  The word itself, however, is not important. I could have written that post without using it.  The idea that words in Scripture can refer to how things appear rather than their real nature is very old and St. Thomas writes about it in the Summa.

To make matters worse, that modernist crap was WRITTEN BY Jaynek.
She wasn't quoting. Hilarious.

bzzzt.  This crosses over from phenomenological / metaphorical language into blatant error.

Because it looked to "them" (who's "them" ... since the Holy Spirit is the author of Sacred Scripture?) to be hard, they "mistakenly" described it as such.  Because the idiots saw a blue sky, they mistakenly concluded that there was water up there.  This is not phenomenological language at all ... but blatant error.  Phenomenological language might include things like "and then the sun set".

This is nothing but modernist crap.

Here's my take on firmament.  If there's no such thing as a solid firmament, then it's because the original Hebrew word actually means "expanse" ... the Latin word for which is spatium ... from which we get our word space.  So the original Hebrew did not imply solidity ... even though the Latin translation did ... by way of interpretation.

This passage above makes the people who wrote Scripture into a bunch of ignoramuses whose ignorance somehow broke through the authorship of Scripture by the Holy Spirit to inject their errors into it.

Well, I apologize for the strong language.  I mistakenly assumed that it was lifted from the link at the bottom of the post.

In hindsight, I think you are right.  

Not even going to address what I said? You called me dumb for doing something you do yourself...constantly. At least try to have a comeback.
St. Augustine (City of God XVI.9): "As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man."

This doesn't sound like a guy who's teaching flat-Earth. He's open to the possibility of a spherical earth.