If we were in the big bang then how come it has taken 13.6 billion years to reach us?

I understand the principle of how light takes time to get to your eye and all of that, but there is a more fundamental question that comes out of this. Consider this.We are able to see over 8 billion years into the past. The conundrum occurs when you consider the nature of the Big Bang. It is stated that we came out of the Big Bang. In fact, it's agreed upon by most intelligent scientists. The problem arises when you consider what this means for us. It means we too came out of the explosion. We are not distant observers of the Big Bang but inversely products of it. If we look back in time through out telescopes, we are seeing ourselves.Now hopefully several of you see the paradox in this. How can we look back to the beginning and see ourselves? How can we look back to the beginning and NOT see ourselves?Also, if we are products of the Big Bang, the rest of the light that came from the creation of galaxies and star nurseries would have flowed WITH us in our progression towards new edges of space. In order for us to see back 8 billion years, it would erroneously require that light produced by matter from that time would have taken 8 billion years to catch us. How were we ever 8 billion years ahead if we came from the same point? We naturally couldn't have outran the light as going faster than light is impossible. We can't even be going near the speed of light as time would slow in accordance and Earth would increase in m.Also, time is not a movie that keeps playing one scene over and over, If we look back in time and see a galaxy being created, we can never go back to that point in our telescopes again. YET, we are able to see further back into time? How can we not see the same occurrence over and over again yet still see a constant flow of the beginning?Rationally, yet against the Big Bang theory, the only way any of this makes sense is if we were created at the same time yet a different point in the universe and the light is just now getting to us. This would mean, however, that we did not come from the areas we ume was our beginning. This way of thinking destroys the Big Bang theory. We cannot come from it, yet see it's creation. Yet, rationally, we HAD to come from the big Bang in order to astrophysics as we understand it to make sense. I'm certainly not about to deny the Big Bang theory just yet, but I will say the Inflation Theory (though physically less probable) is more logical.It's a paradox indeed that has never been adequately explained to me.