Thoughts about Old Testament judgement and justice

Preserved source material
The cool thing about the Old testament and even the New testament, is that much of the original meanings have been preserved from antiquity. Even with some scribal editing and manipulation in the ancient days, the Old testament Bible has never been (or could be) re-edited to serve the purposes of a biassed Christian agenda. In other words, the Christians couldn't modify the old texts to suit their needs and get away with it.
The only changes that have been made are minor wording changes that can often be detected by comparing different versions. The editors of ancient times didn’t have the tools necessary for quick and tidy revision, and could only revise through copying or total removal of verses. It was done through tedious writing processes on ancient scrolls and parchments which also stifled attempts at editing. The translators today are skilled at glazing over contradictory and controversial verses to make them mean something more appeasable. Having said that:

God's justice
The old testament appears to not be consistent with the new testament with its insane "Hell doctrine" or even an afterlife. I read through the first 4 books of the Torah and there is nary a mention of a supposed afterlife with a fiery Hell for the disobedient or faithless. It appears that the wicked receive quick and terrible destruction and those in God’s favour (ie. The covenant people) receive innumerable blessings.
The people seem to have a certain amount of free-will in choosing God, but God does appear to be able to affect behaviour and harden hearts at will. This hardening of the heart does not yet indicate that those same people are "damned to Hell". There are several verses that perhaps indicate some sort of "Christian afterlife" like "blot out under heaven " (under the sky?) or "blot out of your book" (book of covenant blessing/favour?) but these can easily be understood as God killing a person in the physical realm, here on earth. There is no presupposition to a fiery hell for disobedience or unbelief. This notion is strengthened by observing the described punishment for the disobedient. They are all in the form of earthly suffering, calamity, sickness, oppression, disorder, even crop failure and erratic weather. There is not even a hint of there being a sadistic, gratuitous suffering in an eternal lake-of-fire we call Hell. Now that raging, vengeful deity of the old testament doesn’t appear half as bad as that "Believe-in-me or go-to-hell" God described in the New testament.
The blessings of the "old" covenant always appear to be in the form of innumerable descendants, many possessions of cattle, riches and beautiful wives, the best pastures and land, freedom of oppression and victory over enemies, power and influence, wisdom and strength. There is no mention of a glorious heaven and of storing up treasures for heaven. There is a definite spiritual kingdom realm which has power and reigning influence on earth, but that does not translate into the immortality theories of the Greek philosophers (Isn’t this a case of us trying to be like God?). The blessings and favour of God appears to live on through the children of the faithful, hence, the generational connections. Obviously, there had to be some later revision to allow for wicked or righteous children who didn’t follow suit. These blessings or curses did not translate into heaven or hell, salvation or damnation.
This difference in theology is striking since you would think such a concept would at least deserve a mention in the Torah. However, the silence on this issue is extensive and profound and has caused large-scale difficulty in reconciling the two testaments in any logistical/believable fashion. The question of the day being, "What happened to the disobedient, before Christ and the new testament, in terms of the afterlife?" The answer is extremely obscure. There is no doubt that there were people of the covenant saved, but what about the rest? Were all those in the covenant saved? These questions throw all of Christian theology into disarray and led to all these confusing discussions in the Epistles (such as Romans).
Then in Exodus, God makes a statement that seems to contradict the whole Christian redemption concept. Moses asks God if he can die in the place of the people and take their punishment. God says, "Noone can carry the sins of another, each person must die for his own sin." (Ex. 32:32-33) Moses was not only unable himself to atone for the peoples sins, but God asserted that each must die for his own sin, removing the possibility of any innocent dying in place of a sinner. "Excuse me, Christian God. Aren’t you forgetting your big kahoona plan about sending your son to die for the sins of everybody, (or even of just the elect)? Are you saying that concept is unreasonable? Why don’t you tell Moses right now that you’ve already got a saviour-sacrifice lined up?" The fact that God (old testament scribe theologians) didn’t allude to this makes clear that Christian theology was not yet thought up at this time. Even "God" doesn’t yet appear to be aware of this plan. "Hello God, check your planner/ schedule. Remember your Messiah- Christ plan of salvation??? That thing all of history hinges on, starting in the garden of Eden? The people you elected to salvation or damnation before the earth was formed? That was dependant on that concept you just dismissed as being "out of the question".
It seems in the Old Testament, sin was always dealt with swiftly. There was either a large scale slaughter, a plague, or execution or, in the case of God’s beloved Moses, he couldn’t enter the promised land as punishment. Apparently, God still had a use for him and couldn’t wipe him out just yet. In any event, sinners were the disobedient or the ungrateful, and God was angry with them. These people had to be wiped out unless there was some counter-action taken (usually a sacrifice, or other appeasing act) to stop a slaughter or plague. If an atoning sacrifice was made, usually God would forgive them, but sometimes he would still unleash his fury (even after forgiving them).
Today, the church would have us believe that God is tallying up our sins to convict us on judgement day, but if we are washed with the blood of Jesus, we can skip the punishment. If we have faith in Jesus, all our sins will be erased and God will accept us as holy. Is this the same God as the old Testament? How does this God suddenly put aside his anger and decide to sacrifice himself for the sins of others? Is that within the old testament God's character? Why is it that only a part of his trinity-self could still his anger against sin? Is it not within God’s own power to forgive apart from a brutal sacrifice? How is it that he could essentially "punish himself" to avoid punishing us? Is that like me biting my finger when I’m angry instead of striking my child who deserved punishment? Wouldn’t it be smarter to simply forgive by forgetting your anger? The Christian apologetic says that this would contradict God's divine justice. Wait, that sounds like the God of the old testament... but, no. He wouldn't punish an innocent substitute and release the sinner! That doesn't sound like "justice" to me.