Apparent contradiction in the Big Bang Theory

Forgive me if this subject has already been covered, but in checking various threads I didn't see anything on it. In the past two months, there have been a few separate reports of finding galaxies which were formed very shortly after the big bang. From my understanding of the big bang theory, it started out at one central point and the universe has been expanding ever since. Like a balloon. So if we see an object that is 13.2 billion light years away, and the universe is 13.7 billion years old (these are the numbers I saw in one of the recent news reports), then that would mean that we are seeing light as it left that object 500 million years after the big bang and at a position less than 500 million years from the center of the universe where the big bang occurred. What I find to be a real contradiction is that there have been several such reports of galaxies having similar ages, but they are no where near each other. If object A is 13.2 billion light years away, and object B is 13 billion light years away, the distance between object A and object B is less than 1.2 billion light years (based on the age of the universe being 13.7 billion years). Simple high school trigonometry tells you that the angle of separation between these two objects would be a maximum of something like 5.2 degrees (please correct me if I made a mistake in my calculation). There is way more than this amount of separation between these objects, so something isn't right. Please tell me how it is that we can observe objects on opposite sides of the universe which are both looking back to near the beginning of the universe. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. The universe may be shaped like a balloon, but that is not the shape it appears to us. It would appear to use to be somewhat cone shaped due to the fact that we are not viewing all objects in the position they are now, but in various positions back in time. I only have limited knowledge of astronomy (one high school and one college astronomy class), but based on everything I was taught from the textbooks at the time, there is absolutely no way the big bang theory can be correct if the distances and ages of the current objects being discovered are correct. What gives?

Thanks for that reply. I now know where the error was in my assumption. I assumed the objects were actually moving rather than space expanding, which would have meant we had to be on the surface of the balloon rather than within the balloon in order to achieve the red shifts that we see. But this brings up a new problem, which maybe again is just my stupidity or lack of knowledge...If the space of the universe is expanding, but the objects in the universe are not moving (or moving very little when compared to the expansion), then a light year is a calculation of distance, but not age. Everything I see in the press says that an object is x light years away from earth, meaning it is x years old. But this is impossible using the expanding space theory because when the light first leaves the object, the space between it and where "earth" was at that time is much less than today. While we assume the speed of light is constant, the ratio of the distance traveled during a period of time, to the total distance between the objects is constantly decreasing as space is expanded between the objects. If the objects in the universe were actually moving away from each other, rather than the space expanding, then using the light year distance as a measurement of age is valid, but if the space is expanding, then this correspondence is not valid.So if an astronomer says an object was discovered that is 13.2 billion light years away, and we assume that means that the positiion of the object, when a photon of light was emitted from it, is 13.2 billion light years away from the earth at its present location, then the time for this photon of light to travel that distance is actually much less than 13.2 billion years. On the other hand, if you say we are just now seeing the light from an object that was emitted 13.2 billion years ago, it means that the distance between us and the object at the time of emmission is much more than 13.2 billion light years. But this is not at all what is being reported in the press. So either the press has got it all wrong, or (more likely) once again I have missed something really basic. Can someone please straighten me out on this. I'm sorry, maybe this is the wrong place to be asking this question because it is meant for debating the issues.

Thanks for that link. There's actually a lot of information on that site explaining the big bang theory which I have to digest first before commenting anymore.