Are you still arguing that Louw-Nida is wrong when they say:Thank you for admitting that "by God" is not found in the text, and that you're just interpretationally adding things into the text to justify your dogma.
Did you consider how weak your arugument is? You are taking an interpretation from Louw-Nida about 3a found in a footnote, adding it to 3b without justification so you can interpret χωρὶς in 3b in a way rejected by BDAG/BAGD. Oh and don't forget how your interpretation of 3c-4a is likewise rejected by BDAG/BAGD. It's almost like you have no objectivity, therefor no credibility, when it comes to what the Bible means via exegesis.
And, the sentence "All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." is talking about him, the Word, not God. Therefore, nothing in the text justifies your interpretational addition, and without your interpretational addition, the verse is contextually nonsensical, taking it the way you take it. Besides, did you ever wonder if "except for him not one thing was created [by God]" was a greek understanding of χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ? Or, did you just go with the English? BAGD classifies John 1:3 use of χωρὶς as without or apart from someone's activities or assistance.
Again, "All things were created through him and apart from him not one thing was created." categorically denies the possibility that he was created.
Not one thing you said before was grammatical. You don't know what you're talking about. These types of arguments are not grammatical; they are contextual and lexicographical arguments. That you can't tell the difference explains your inability to deal with the text meaningfully.
"What was created in him was life." does not teach God created the Son's life inside of the Son. Stop reading your theology into the text.
There is absolutely nothing here justifying this reading. Therefore, the one thing one can be sure of is that your reading is not natural.
The clause "apart from him not one thing was created" categorically denies the existence of anything that was made outside of "all things created through him."
I'm still wondering: What evidence do you have that Danker believes this life was the Word personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."? Oh yeah, you don't have anything. In claiming "Danker agrees with me", you're mixing up the discussion of ζωὴ with the discussion of μονογενὴς. If you are using the improved version of the Bauer lexicon, then why do you think ζωὴ in John 1:4 is the Word's personal life as opposed to "the supernatural life belonging to God and Christ which the believer will receive in the future, but which they also enjoy here and now."?
It would be wrong to restructure Jn 1.3 to read 'he made everything in all creation,' for in the Scriptures God is spoken of as the Creator, but the creation was done 'through the Word.'