ConfusedChild

Given: Current accepted Theory is that the Universe as we know it (observe it) started from a "BIG BANG" from a "SINGLE POINT" around 13 Billion earth years ago AND that the Universe continues to expand Further, recent Deep space observations show that the further out in space you look the closer together the galaxies appear to be, supporting the idea of Universe Expansion. My confusion: If light travelling from the far reaches of the Universe is in fact showing us events that occurred in the past, based on the theory of speed of light, then why isn't the sky either completely full of light or showing stars as arcs of light and or exaggerated donuts and or ellipses? Assuming that a single star is moving away from us ... at 1 billion light years, it was 1 billion light years away from us ... if it is moving away from us then it should be closer to us at some other distance (in light years) ... so the closer in time we observe this object, should it not be in a different location and showing us its path in light ... perhaps this is the Red/blue shift described by scientists ... in that the amount of distance moved isn't enough for us to observe? What I can't get my head wrapped around is the possibility that if Light lasts forever in a vacuum, then every point of light should link back to its origin. Understanding that there are other collisions of matter causing Stars to either die or be reborn then each of those should also show their point of origin. Assuming there is only one Universe and one Big Bang and it is deemed to be 13 Billion years old ... then at point 0 when the Big Bang occurred, if the Universe expanded at the speed of light the maximum size the current universe could be is 26 Billion light years in diameter ... the Earth is somewhere in this orb of the Universe, so when we look out one could assume that in one direction there would be a minimum amount of time we could observe < 13 Billion (the Earth's reference point to the closest extent of the Universe) ... in the opposite direction one would expect that we should be able to see back to the beginning of time > 13 Billion ... If we could see back to the beginning of time, then again I don't follow why we are only able to see the stars as single points of light in space. Perhaps what we see is a result of a focal point reference (a snapshot in time) and that if one were able to change the focal length of a telescope at light speed then we could possibly observe what I describe?