As impressive as cosmological theories are, they are, after all, still theories. Fifty years from now, they will be as outdated as the steady-state theory is today.
I mentioned our axial rotational speed of 1K mph as an example without going into the rotational speed around the sun, or suns rotational speed around the galaxy, or the speed with which the galaxy is closing in or receding from other galaxies.
But, your elaborate presentation is most appreciated. I do have a question regarding your statement "In sum, the universe is at least 156 light years wide." Did you forget some zeros?
Also, relativity is no different than the Ptolemaic navigational method (that, in its own right is an epitome of relativity!), which can still be used to navigate, its geocentric premises notwithstanding. But, the fact is, the same method could be applied on Mars or on a comet, with correct repetitive phenomena recorded and formulated in the same way. It would give predictable and repetitive results with a high dose of confidence, which is what science is all about, right?
But science does not give truth; it merely provides working models. And working models can have any number of "dimensions" needed for the equations to give the desired answer. In fact, if you need to account for a phenomenon, invent a new "dimension" or "element," or "particle," and plug it into an equation and you're in business!
Claudius Ptolemy conveniently introduced an "egg-shaped" orbit of Mercury, "epicycles" and "equants" that neatly completed his formulae to fit the observed phenomena! Scientists do it all the time! For instance, cosmologists conveniently "add" estimated matter "needed" to solve equations. They are all estimates, assumptions and presumptions.
What we seem to see in all of creation is that everything is going in circles. We rotate around the axis, around the sun, multiple (usually double) star systems around each other, stars around the galaxy, and galaxies belonging to a local group rotate around each other, .
The whole universe could be rotating, creating a giant 'donut' as parts closer to the common center would travel faster while peripheral parts would move slower relative to each other, thus providing the perception of expansion or contraction based on spectral shifts. But my point is that such shifts do not prove that the universe is not going around in circles, nor does it disprove that there may be more than one such universe.
Cosmology also does not explain what is this vast "space" we are traversing "through," this abyss with no beginning and no end, or where it comes from. If the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang the space is really an endless "hole," and this "hole" had to predate energy and matter!
Your elaboration and "concordance" with the Genesis and cosmology brings to mind that there are two accounts of Genesis, and that the order of creation is reversed in them, with man created before plants and animals in one and after the animals and plants in the other.
Likewise, the Big Bang theory "concordance" with the Bible would have the Bible start "And God said: 'Let there be Light!'" '[Bang!] rather than "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
But, as you say, it is not important that we disagree on which science to believe or whether the Bible is "exactly the way it happened," but whether we can find the same Spirit in our hearts. The rest is our honest journey out of love for God.
That which occupies the space between galaxies is dark energy which as an effect like negative gravity or a space/time "outdent" - as compared say to a high positive gravity area such as dark matter which occupies the center of galaxies and causes the stars to orbit, i.e. a space/time "indent." Dark energy is 70% of the critical density of the universe, dark matter is 25% and ordinary matter a meager 5%.