Psalm 99:5 "Worship at his Footstool" or "Worship his Footstool"

In a recent debate, Craig Truglia argued that Psalm 99:5 should be read, "worship his footstool," contrary to every English translation that I could find (example of a long list).  Craig seemed to suggest that Young's Literal Translation had such a reading, but the edition in the list I provided does not support Craig's assertion.

The ancient church did not always correctly interpret the Old Testament, sometimes because of the issue of a second order translation, or simply a faulty Greek translation.  By way of exception, Jerome understands the text not as "worship his footstool" but "worship at his footstool."  Thus, Jerome (in his Letter 46) argues that it refers to Jerusalem. He makes a similar use of the phrase to refer to Bethlehem in Letter 108.

There are, however, authors who interpreted the text as "worship his footstool." Nevertheless, consider how they apply it.  I omit from the list places where the text is merely quoted without discussion.

• Augustine argues that we worship God's footstool by worshipping Christ (link to Augustine's exposition on Psalm 99).
• Ambrose makes the same argument at chapter 11, sections 75-79, of On the Holy Spirit, Book III.  Considering the close relationship of Augustine to Ambrose, we may guess that the former got it from the latter.
• Gregory of Nyssa has a different understanding.  In On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians, he writes: "every height of man's ability falls below the grandeur of the Spirit (for that is what the Word means in the metaphor of footstool)," to explain the meaning in his citation: "still when one shall have reached the highest limit of human faculties, the utmost height and magnificence of idea to which the mind can ever attain, even then one must believe it is far below the glory that belongs to Him, according to the words in the Psalms, that after exalting the Lord our God, even then ye scarcely worship the footstool beneath His feet: and the cause of this dignity being so incomprehensible is nothing else than that He is holy."

There may be more patristic commentaries out there on the subject.  That said, I don't think there is any reason to accept either Craig's translation or his interpretation of that translation, either on the basis of the Hebrew language or on the basis of patristic tradition.