You really should continue looking about the Great Pyramid of Giza. That seems to be the only place you would be able to find any non-JW scholars that believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607.
Does the name Morton Edgar ring a bell? I'm sure he would have written a favorable review for Furuli's laughable "broken, tampered tablet theory". Perhaps we could recall some of the other celebrated scholars that agree with your revisionist history?
I do not have Furuli's book, but from what I have read, I could say that he might be in partial agreement with Furuli. Most of Edgar's works may be found online:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Treatises.htm
(Scroll Down to the Section Marked "Edgars")
Nevertheless, Bible Students have always been free to present variant views on chronology and the Great Pyramid. Even Edgar did not agree with everything that Barbour or Russell presented, and yet Russell recommended the Edgars' books.
For a few of the variant views amongst Bible Students on chronology, check the "Chronology" section at:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/bsllinks/Doctrine.htm
Overall, however, I believe that the basic cross confirmation of the chronology and time prophecies as originally presented by Barbour, and which was built upon by Russell and the Edgars, serves in itself the greatest evidence that it is true. So far this system of prophecy and time prophecy is the only system that I found that has such an abundant amount of corroboration within itself. Just as the Bible itself, once understood in its related features, is found to be harmious, and thus gives abundant evidence of its validity by such harmony, likewise this system of chronology and time prophecy also displays the same harmony within itself. We know that there are thousands who seek to find fault with the Bible itself with claims that its history does not agree with secular history, that it is self-contradictory, etc. I believe both Russell and Edgar demonstrated the harmony of this system of chronology and time prophecy abundantly. But even so, I would not wish to adopt a sectarian view of the matter, so as claim that others who hold to other viewpoints are "not in the truth," etc.
http://bstudents.reslight.net/sectarianism
Ronald