You said: The rebuttal of your argument is as easy as breathing, even using your preferred punctuation.
1) Verse three says that all things came into existence through the word. It says "all things" not some things
Did I miss your rebuttal to the fact that the Father is a thing too in 1 Co 15?.
The Greek Grammar by Blass and Debrunner (BDF) says:
"Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion 'other, whatever' (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek."
And so we find examples like:
NRS Sirach 1:4 Wisdom was created before all other things, and prudent understanding from eternity. προτέρα πάντων ἔκτισται σοφία καὶ σύνεσις φρονήσεως ἐξ αἰῶνος
There was no need for a rebuttal. I told you repeatedly that I am dealing with John 1:3-4. You have asked me before to take a stance and defend a position, and I am doing so. Why do you keep running off-topic? If the grammar allows your interpretation, you should be able to defend it from the source text John 1:3-4. As far as I'm concerned, your failure to do so is as good as a concession.
But since you mentioned this passage, I will at least say this. Two different individuals may conceptualize or explain the same events in different, even seemingly contradictory ways that, that can easily be reconciled. This is especially true when we try to describe spiritual things that are beyond our understanding. I doubt you contend that God has "feet" or that he actually intends to use the things he has subjugated as an actual footstool.
Not according to my own expository rendering of the text:
Thanks for the laugh, Roger! As I said before, what scholar agrees with the "great" Roger Thornhill?
All things were made through the personal agency of the Word, and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else.
But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.
I'll be nice and say this is a horrible paraphrase. (It can't be more than that after all.)
I assume this is what you are trying to translate?
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο,
"All things were made through the personal agency of the Word"
This is acceptable. Your paraphrase choice "personal agency" is artificially narrow, but the text could be understood in that manner.
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν.
"and so apart from him nothing was made through the personal agency of anyone else"
(It's hard to tell where you intended the text to stop, so feel free to tell me if this is not the break you had in mind. Up to this point I am trying to use your punctuation as a guide.)
This is just horrible. You start by perpetuating your "and so" error, and then you introduce "through the personal agency of anyone else." It is absent here. If your understanding of δι’ is wrong, so is your gloss. The fact is that there are examples in the NT where διά refers to agency and origination. You like to look at references, go see if you can find some.
ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.
But the life that was the light of men was made in him and the darkness has not overtaken it.
(At this point it is entirely impossible to know what you thought you were translating. Again, feel free to explain what you meant by this hot mess!)
There are so many mistakes here I don't even know where to begin!
1) You started by adding the word "but." There is no contrast in the passage.
2) You have combined two different sentences into one, taking liberties with the grammar. ("ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" and "καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων."
3) The passage does not say that "life was made." "Life" describes what "had come into existence."
4) ἐν αὐτῷ can be taken in a number of different ways besides that which you have suggested. This one is a possibility.
5) You didn't gloss "καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει" at all.
6) If you intend to make your thinking clear to the reader, this is a very poor paraphrase. Those unfamiliar with the controversies of this passage would not understand you in the manner you intend. The reader is most likely going to think that some of the things that the word created were outside of him and some were inside of him (whatever they think that would mean). They won't understand that you envision these as two separate creation events.
The asyndeton provides a contrast between the two statements.
I don't know which two statements you are talking about.
You said:
And, for what it's worth, the verb ἦν doesn't allow for a new/separate creation either.
Thanks for your opinion. You have a tendency to assert it and assume you are correct.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Find one scholar who agrees with your opinion. The reason for that is what I have told you is a FACT. If you knew what they looked like, you wouldn't have to take solace in your prized prostitute "ad hominem."
3) The word is already said to be in existence before all things came into existence through him. More specifically, John 1 never mentions a time when the word did not exist nor does it say that the word came into existence. If he had that would've contradicted his remarks in verse 3. This makes it even more likely that when he wrote "all things" he did, in fact, refer to "all things."
See above. You again make an assertion about some sort of chronological sequence without considering the text as a whole.
If I tell you a fact, you accuse me of asserting something without proof, despite the fact that nearly everyone in the history of Christianity agrees with me and despite the fact that I could, if I so chose, find several scholars that would say exactly what I have said. But I'm supposed to believe that you aren't just making things up and that I haven't done the study that I know I have done? Where do you get off? Where are your facts? Where is your argument? Here's a fact for you: the whole prologue is a chronological sequence! First, the word was with God. Then, the word created something. Finally, the word will be born and called Jesus. What a joke you are!
4) Whatever you think "life" means in verse 4, it applies only to the things "ὃ γέγονεν." Your (apparent) application of that "life" to the word is something else that the text doesn't allow.
I am the only one who has defined the life in the Word. You have not. It's the life God gave him according to BDAG. When one has life in oneself it's always ones own life without exception, even if it is used to give others life.
The word was already a sentient being. As I told RJM, any concept of "life" that you hold is flawed if it doesn't take that into consideration. I was trying to give you some opportunity to develop your thoughts, but, since don't appear to have any, I'll say what I could've said earlier. BDAG actually says "of Christ who received life from God." We aren't talking about the Christ at this point, RJM, we are talking about the word. So, if you want to operate on what BDAG actually says, it 100% identifies the pre-incarnate word with the Christ or it isn't talking about the word at all. Even if one thinks that God gave the word life, it does not follow that he was the originator of Christ in the first place (that is to say it does not mean that the word could not be eternal). It need only mean that at some point God gave the word life. And, lo and behold! that's exactly what John records. One of the difficult things to keep in mind is that by the time John wrote his gospel, Christ had already created the world, been born, been killed, and been resurrected. It is hard to know for certain what, exactly, John had in mind. Either way, as I have already said, there are certain things that we can know with near certainty, and those are the ones you don't appear to have a hint of an answer for.