That misses the thrust of the argument. The point is that if you've already drawn a particular conclusion from a passage, and you're confronted with a logically conflicting interpretation....I think my post was clear enough. I'm not going to repeat it here.
You're not supposed to be focused on any particular text. That was the first covenant. The letter of scripture kills. We are to be focused on the person of Jesus, not the letter of the law. The first, flawed covenant is provided to us by God just for historical reference purposes, as I said.
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Jeremiah 31
But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.
Hebrews 9:15
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews 8:13
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Luke 22:20
And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.
Hebrews 8:6
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.
Hebrews 8:7-8
For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,