Another post that's entirely on math... which I despise whenever I'm actually studying it.

I just had a thought. This thought is an interesting thought, but I know there must be a hole in it somewhere. It seems like such an obvious problem that it should have an obvious answer, and I would like to get the answer without being laughed at by a bunch of fanatical astronomy geeks. Supposedly the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, and the oldest observable light in the Universe is 13 billion years old. What I would like to know is, how can we see 13 billion year old light if everything in the universe originated from a central point? If an object moving directly away from us gave off light 13 billion years ago, and the light reached us in 13.7 billion years, then the combined speed of us and the object must be 94.89% (13 / 13.7) of light speed. Put more simply, we must be traveling at 318,175,772 miles an hour in opposite directions. To me this number seems a bit.... high.
And the scientists agree. The speed of the galaxy relative to this same cosmic background radiation (the oldest light in the observable universe) has been calculated as 1,367,017 miles an hour, or about 0.5% of that speed. (No, embarrassingly, I didn't read the article I just linked to, just a simpler article that cited it).
And another thing! The cosmic background radiation is assumed to be almost exactly equal in all directions; they measured that speed I just cited by assuming the background radiation was equal in all directions, then calculating the speed that would be required to produce the observed Doppler shifts. How the heck is this evidence for the big bang? If everything came from a single point how does the radiation from that point surround us? True, we ourselves would have been a source of that radiation, but since both we and the light are moving this doesn't seem to change things.
Granted, I have no idea what the distances in this diagram should be, but it seems that one of two things would happen: either all the light would pass beyond all the matter in the universe, since the one is traveling faster than the other, or we would only be able to see light from a certain percentage of the sky, those parts of it that were far enough away so that the light was just reaching us.

Actually, nevermind. That's not "another thing", its the exact same concept with a different diagram.

In the process of formulating my question and argument I ran across a page that gave the answer to my question. Unfortunately, I can't understand the answer, and it seems like the kind of answer that accounts for a small discrepancy, not a huge one. If anyone reads this and can either give me an explanation, explain the explanation I have already received, or refer me to someone who can do either of the aforementioned things, I would be eternally grateful.

Well, not eternally.

But I would say "thanks".