This question: How is it possible that we see light from shortly after the big bang? originally presented a wrong theory bordering on nonsense, and asked "what's wrong with this theory". no complaints, this is a tough call what to do with this stuff, but I thought this edit might work, and you locked the post before I had a chance to do it:
Title: Is the idea of a point explosion generating everything consistent with big-bang cosmology?
I thought of the big bang as a point of infinite energy, which I theorize about using something I call "m" point. As "energy" is lost from this point, a bang occurs, converting lower forms of energy into matter.
At this instant the "energy"at lower levels moves faster than "light as light has no mass. In-turn this bang creates a "slope of increasing mass"(space) moving in all directions(over time). I believe this explains both why we "see" light from the past from the same event that created us as light moved slower (was less likely to move away from the central point of energy than lower forms of energy that create mass.
Is this consistent with what is known?
This question is borderline, since the theory has no merit, but explaining why the idea has no merit allows you to explain some misconceptions about the light from the big bang. The question as rewritten does not get the main misconception across, it just asks "how can we see light from the explosion that created us?"
I could be ok with the rephrased question, but what's up with the quick locking? The edit to the short question changed the subject entirely, and made my answer a non-sequitor.