OK, first: Exodus Decoded is an article which you have recently edited (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Exodus_Decoded&action;=history) and there you commented the quality of sources given there. You did not say anything there about the creationist website, but if you now say that this website is not reliable, so with your premission I will use your argument when I'll edit that article. I will be happy to see you make the same statement about that website on the Exodus Decoded discussion board. 

 Second: I will try to find the exact references for the Babylonian seige/loot of Jerusalem, although I cannot devote all my time for this. I encourage other editors to look for it, some may exist here (I don't have much time to make the research): http://www.britishmuseum.org/search_results.aspx?searchText=Nebuchadnezzar+II+tablets . But regardless of whether I can find these Babylonian records on the Internet, there's another issue: if the First Temple is "mythical", why call the Second Temple "second"? If the first did not exist, the second would have been called "first". The Second Temple was a reconstruction (of the first, known as the Temple of Solomon).