I don't know how to make you understand this. "ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν" is not equivalent to "ἐν "αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν." BDAG is clearly using the punctuation that you think is wrong. The syntax of the former is different from that of the latter. The remarks in BDAG only apply to the phrase ἐν "αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν.You said:
It's in the BGAD quote you provided. ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a. I didn't say they "prefer" any particular punctuation. I said it should be obvious to you that their comment referred to a specific construction. You shouldn't apply those remarks to the phrase ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν as though there were no difference.
The quote is:
β. of Christ, who received life fr. God J 5:26b (ἡ ζωὴ τῆς πίστεως ParJer 9:14). ἐν αὐτῷ ζ. ἦν 1:4a; cp. 1J 5:11b.
How does the KJV punctuation demonstrate that he received life from God? With a full stop after ο γεγονεν the life in him is governed by ην, a stative verb and the start of life in him is not visible in the syntax.
I am tired of your inability to stay on topic. Let me tell you where I am, and we'll see if it helps: We were/are discussing the content of John 1:3-4 in the NA 28. If you are discussing a specific translation of those verses (like the KJV), you are off-topic. If you are discussing another passage, you are off-topic. If you are using a reference that isn't discussing something specifically about the contents of John 1:3-4, you are off-topic. For the final time, please try to stay on topic or just admit that you've got nothing else to add and move on. Your entire argument hinges on two separate "coming into existence" events and the text 100% does not allow that. It's not like you can overcome that fact anyway.