Observations show that our universe is expanding and cooling. The Big Bang Theory is simply a logical reversal of this process. The merits of theories dealing with "before" the Big Bang are unrelated to the point I've made, which was that there is no consensus of the singularity indicating a beginning. Who says I "believe" in pre-big bang theories? I certainly didn't. They're untested as of yet, as you say. But the very fact that they exist indicates doubt in the minds of many physicists that the singularity is the origin of it all.
Consensus is that the best current model we have based on empirical data and observations is the bigbang theory. Now we know at one point there was a singularity, even that had to
Come from somewhere, but beyond science as it's metaphysical!
The consensus agrees that the universe began it had a finite beginning, now all the other theories you refer to, like QLG (quantum loop gravity), string theory, multiverse etc, are all theories with no scientific proof they are simply based on mathematical axioms and conventions, which can also be used to show a spaghetti monster beyond the singularity, point being it's metaphysical theories with no science behind it, yet you prefer those theories as the cause of our universe coming into existence, although it does not meet your standards, the very same standards of proof you demand from religion, scripture, and god. When physicists say the cause is gravity, multiverse, motherverse, omniverse etc, they base it on mathematical axioms and conventions, basically reasoning, logic and philosophy, not empirical data! That type of reasoning can easily be debunked, deconstructed and one can present god as the cause based on better reasoning, philosophy, but most of all, using current data and science to support the argument!
The OP will surely provide verse etc just be patient. As he told you when you translate from one language to another a lot is lost, not only that the translator attempts to find the best equivalent in the language it being translated in to, sometimes there is no equivalent too. Translating the Quran goes through the same process, judgement cant be based on the translated words it has to be based on the original. Clearly you have no clue about linguistics, etymology of words etc. The verses which refer to splitting and seperation denote expansion by virtue of contextual, historical, linguistic setting and placements. That ofcourse in the original Arabic, the English translation is a best attempt to bring the meaning to you in English, but a lot is lost in translation, that's why the OP has gone through such an effort to breakdown words, provide ethnological roots etc, using non Muslim sources. For some it's not enough still, due to their blind faith whether in science and it's clergy or a religion!
Ofcourse there is, there is layman understanding, translations provide that, the original Arabic if one is well versed provides deeper and in-depth meanings. For example one word in the Quran may 10 meanings, but when the Quran uses a words with multiple meanings, all the meanings are relevant in their own right and still make sense of everything including context. It's as though every word choice is perfect, that's a unique characteristic in the Quran alone!
If you don't know something, learn it! Or ask someone who does, if you don't know Arabic then learn from those who do, and the OP is teaching some of it!