The difference here is that in examples fed us, your ideas, like Mariology, are in conflict with OT & NT directly.
This seems like a non sequitur to the comment of mine you echoed.
But anyway, you once again have no problem equating your interpretation of Scripture with a direct command from God.
When one says Queen of Heaven, we know that to be another diety - per Jeremiah chapters 7 & 44 (One might do good to read both complete chapters). For most, knowing these things is not the problem - accepting them is.
And when one says "David" we know that to be the Hebrew King from the book of Samuel, right? That must mean that I am the guy that Micahelangelo scultped. I am the guy who sent Uriah to die so I could have his wife. I'm very naughty, aren't I?
Either that, or my use of the name "David" is used to signify a wholly different person than the Biblical David. I realize that is confusing to some people.
SD
Having missed my point, you turned right around and made it for me again. We can find contextual issues to check scripture against scripture by looking to other scripture. Ya'll just look for any old thing that looks close and claim final authority in a bunch of inconsistant wannabes that can't get anything straight between themselves and don't agree with the Bible. You call them "fathers" and contest the authority of the Bible. If the Bible writers had first hand knowledge, how is the word of someone who 'knew somebody that heard that x might be the case' from the 2nd century better and more reliable than the guys who wrote from the trenches. If I want the War story from the point of view of a soldier, I go to a soldier, not somebody that once heard a story about a soldier that lived 130 years ago. If you have the story of the soldiers in writing, who needs the xth hand information of a bunch of wannabes from the 2nd century?