Can the Big Bang be reconciled with the six days of Genesis 1?

Anybody who is going to try to impose the Big Bang theory on chapter one of Genesis, I just have a loathing for it. If you want to believe in the Big Bang, evolution, or long ages, go ahead and take that risk, but do not try to impose it on the Bible as if you can give sanction to your theory by having the Bible back it up; that crosses the line. If you are going to claim to meld science and Scripture, your exegesis must be flawless, because the burden is on you. Genesis says the earth came first and the stars came afterward; the Big Bang says the stars came first and the earth came eight and a half billion years later, so right there you are not going to succeed. They take pride in going over the Hebrew, trying to make a distinction so that let there be does not mean God created something, which is a total farce; in Genesis it says God said let there be light, and the sentence finishes and there was light. If the days are millions of years, how are the plants, made on the third day, surviving without sufficient light for millions of years until the sun appears on the fourth day? It just does not make sense. Hugh Ross even says there was no light on the first days because a planet the size of Mars bombarded the earth and left a cloud for millions of years, but where is the evidence for that, and would that not destroy anything on earth? God wrote Genesis 1 in such a way that it precludes any other system being imposed on it, and yet they try, and they are flat out wrong.