No, they didn't. They made a serious error by changing the word from woman to fire. Look closely at the subtle differences in the Hebrew renderings below. There is a distinct difference between the rendering for woman and that for fire.
אִשָּׁ֣ה woman Zechariah 5:7
אִשֶּׁ֖ה fire Leviticus 3:11
Rood and his associates were going by the transliteration only as indicated in his article.
"Chaim read down the page, paused, and looked up at us, "It is the word 'aisha'." David said, "It is a fire offering!"
They were NOT using the actual Hebrew text. They made a huge error.
Michael Rood is a very dangerous man to listen to. I implore you to investigate his words as I just did. He is leading people into grave error.
You really do not understand!
In the Hebrew scriptures the word clearly is fire; the context proves it.
You are a very dangerous man to listen to, and your attack on a man of God will prove costly in eternity unless you confess and repent.
.
BTW,
What do you suppose the likelihood of anyone putting an evil woman in a lead epah would be?
.
The roots (most Hebrew words are formed from a three character sequence) are different so they are separate. Yet there is a somewhat interesting rabbinic story about these three words that share letters, man, woman, and fire, which may serve as a diversion from the war.