Okay, we can add really poor reading comprehension to your growing list of infractions including fabrication of evidence, rationalization of adultery, and rejection of the new covenant. When you return, I would appreciate your response to the content provided for you, as it isn't hard to tell your posting habits are comprised of hitting the "reply" before reading anything.
I suppose that is a concession that you don't accept Jeremiah's prophecy of a new covenant.
Where did you find this incompetent paraphrase of Romans 3:31? Did you write this yourself?
Here is Romans 3:31 in its context:
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
The law established is identified by quoting Genesis 15:6 from it. That's the Genesis record, which Paul establishes in order to prove that Abraham's faith apart from works was his source of imputed righteousness. This account happened 430 years before the Sinai covenant existed (Galatians 3:17).
That just affirms your incompetent rendition that replaced Romans 3:31 above. You're claiming to be married to the law and to Jesus at the same time, and are rendered an adulterer by what Paul wrote in Romans 7:1-4 (which he addressed to those who know the law, which you don't).
You never have distinguished the difference between transgressions to the law and sin that existed before the law did. I have concluded that you never will, because Romans 4 isn't in your Bible and you have shown no interest in the truth of the Gospel.
This is inconsistent with your incompetent rendition of Romans 3:31, which you approved of when you presented it.
What's after the comma?
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
It's an admission Paul makes that he doesn't keep the law ordained at Sinai, confirmed in verse 14: "I am carnal, sold under sin".
8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
The law is lethal, consistent with how it was dictated in Deuteronomy 30:15-16, with compliance a requisite for life. "The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor 15:56).
That's just another way to say you're so content to remain in adultery that you're going to rationalize it in your own mind.
From the moment you relied on an incompetent paraphrase to replace Scripture with, you lost what little credibility you hoped to convey any semblence of truth with. You sealed your departure from the truth by rejecting Jeremiah 31 and commiting adultery, along with your admission of violating the sabbath you're so committed to. There is no truth in you.