Thank you Ari!

That was the kind of answer I was looking for from the OP (and North, earlier in the thread too). The redshift of the CMBR is dependent on the assumptions made about its origins, as we have no way of knowing what the original temperature was. Its spectrum does have the almost perfect shape of a blackbody though (as BB predicts for the CMBR), so this would still need to be explained in another model, as stars are often only poor approximations of a blackbody. If someone states the CMBR is a local effect we still need to know how it works.

The OP still needs to explain the observed redshift-magnitude-apparent angular diameter relationships of galaxies though, and the different observed durations for SN1a over a range of magnitudes/redshifts.

Speedfreek I visited the website you recommended showing the little photon taking 13 billion ly's to reach between galaxies when the galaxies started out 3 b ly's apart. As the little photon travels approximately 5.7 trillion miles, 9.5 trillion kilometers in only one year, How fast do you think those galaxies are going?

As for the "observed redshift-magnitude-apparent angular diameter relationships of galaxies" I believe gravitional lensing would be the logical cause. It's like taking a magnifing glass holding at a distance where it is in focus, then pulling it away.

In answer to your question, those galaxies are apparently receding from each other at multiples of the speed of light.

You think a logical cause for the redshift-magnitude-angular diameter relationships is gravitational lensing? Where a distant objects light is bent around a massive object that is positioned in between the distant galaxy and the observer? Gravitational lensing as predicted by General Relativity? So all the galaxies with a redshift over z=1.6 have a massive object (like a cluster of galaxies) in a direct line between them and us, and yet these massive objects aren't detected themselves?

The lensing is caused as the light is bent around a strong gravitational field and is only observed if that field is in a direct line between source and observer, where it causes the image of the object to be bent into a ring around the foreground object. If the foreground object is slightly misaligned you see multiple distorted images around the foreground object. Nowhere does gravitational lensing predict a magnification of the distant object.

Or do you have another mechanism for gravitational lensing, that explains the range of redshifts when compared to the angular-diameters of galaxies? It also has to explain the range of redshifts compared to distance, which is a different relationship in the mainstream model.

What definition of gravitational lensing are you using when you say "It's like taking a magnifing glass holding at a distance where it is in focus, then pulling it away." It doesn't seem to be Einstein's definition, but do correct me if I am wrong here.