Baptist Greek scholar, A. T. Robertson, noted in his Word Pictures in the New Testament that there are two ways of punctuating and reading John 1:3-4. The old Greek manuscripts did not have punctuation, which at times allows more than one way of reading a particular passage, particularly the exact point where a sentence ends and a new sentence begins. This is because often in Greek a sentence begins with a dependent clause rather than the independent clause which forms the nucleus of the sentence. At times, a certain dependent clause could potentially be the ending clause of one sentence, or the beginning clause of a new sentence. When the text makes sense when read either way, the choice of how to punctuate the sentence is entirely up to the translator. This is where sometimes translator bias creeps into the translation. Most English translations render these two verses as follows:
3 All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (NASB)
The underlined words in the above translation are the last part of the sentence in verse 3, which follows the Majority Text and Textus Receptus added punctuation.
(Majority Text & Textus Receptus)
3 Πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν. 4 Ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
Literally: 3 “Everything through Him originated, and without Him originated nothing what originated. 4 In Him life was, and the life was the light of men.”
However, Robertson pointed out that this translation is “doubtful” and was not how this passage was quoted by the earliest Christian writers. He writes: “It is doubtful also whether the relative clause “that hath been made” (ho gegonen [ὃ γέγονεν]) is a part of this sentence or begins a new one as Westcott and Hort print it. The verb is second perfect active indicative of ginomai. Westcott observes that the ancient scholars before Chrysostom all began a new sentence with ho gegonen [ὃ γέγονεν]. The early uncials had no punctuation.”
The Nestle-Aland Critical Text, which most modern translations usually follow (except on rare occasions), places the words ὃ γέγονεν (“what has originated”) as the first words of a new sentence which comprises verse 4. This is in agreement with the earliest quotations of this verse and the opinion of textual scholar B. F. Westcott. Yet most modern versions do not follow their own underlying text here. The NA28 Greek edition reads as follows: (Note the placement of the period.)
 πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν  ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·
3 “Everything through Him originated, and without Him originated not one thing. What has originated 4 in Him life was, and the life was the light of men.”
Here are a few examples from the earliest Christian writers. Irenaeus (2nd cent.) quoted this passage as follows: “…there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men.
Clement of Alexandria (2nd cent.) quoted verse 4 as follows: “He that is illuminated is therefore awake towards God; and such an one lives. ‘For what was made in Him was life.’ ‘Blessed is the man,’ says Wisdom, ‘who shall hear me, and the man who shall keep my ways, …”
Again, commenting on 1 John 1:2, Clement wrote: “’The life was manifested.’ For in the Gospel he thus speaks, ‘And what was made in Him was life, and the life was the light of men.’” 
Here is a quote from Origen (3rd cent.): “John also, who lived after him, said, ‘That which was in the Logos was life, and the life was the light of men,’ which ‘true light lighteth every man …”
Hippolytus (3rd cent.) wrote: “’For all things’ he says ‘were made by him, and not even one thing was made without him,’ and ‘what was made in him was life.’”
For these reasons, in the LGV I have translated John 1:3-4 as follows:
3 Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated. 4 What has originated in Him was life, and the Life was the light of men.
Besides the fact that this is the way the ancient Greek-speaking Christian writers understood these verses, there is another reason to reject the reading in most English versions. It creates a redundant statement: “nothing came into being that has come into being” (NASB). The addition of “ὃ γέγονεν” (what has originated) adds nothing at all to the sentence but is completely redundant.
Another point worth noting is that the word translated “originated” in verses 3 and 10 in reference to the creation is in the aorist tense. However, in the clause, “What has originated in Him was life,” the perfect tense is used. Thus, “life” which is external to God had its beginning and continues in the one called “Logos.” This statement explicitly references the origin of the one called Logos, as a new “Life.” John’s prologue does not merely indicate that Logos was “with God” (external to God) in the beginning of creation week, but He originated (as new Life) from God at that time. It should be observed that when Eve was created out of Adam’s body, He called her name “Life,” which is the meaning of the Hebrew word translated Eve. This also perfectly corresponds with the statement about “Wisdom” being begotten in Proverbs 8:22-31 (LXX) as “the Beginning“ of creation, and with Paul’s statement about the Son in Colossians 1:15,18, “He is the image of the invisible God, first-produced of all creation,” and, “who is the Beginning,” and Jesus’ statement about Himself in Revelation 3:14 as “the Beginning of the creation of God.”
This raises the question of why most Bible translations do not follow the ancient reading of this verse or the modern Nestle – Aland Greek edition they claim to be translating. As Robertson pointed out, John Chrysostom and those after him read this verse as it is in most of our English Bibles. John Chrysostom, arch-bishop of Constantinople from AD 397 – 407, served and wrote shortly after the Council of Constantinople (AD 381). The earlier Council of Nicaea (AD 325) declared that the Son was “begotten” out of God, thus affirming that He was of the same divine essence or nature as God. However, the Council of Constantinople clarified this to mean that the Son was begotten “before all ages” (in eternity past) and was interpreted as “eternal generation,” a continuous “generation” from all eternity. This excluded the earlier view that the Son was “begotten” as “the Beginning” of the creation week (Wisdom of Prov. 8). If John 1:3-4 was punctuated and interpreted in the manner it had been understood since the very beginning, it would contradict the new creedal dogma of “eternal generation.” This explains why writers beginning with John Chrysostom adopted this reading. Today, almost all English translations are heavily biased towards Trinitarianism and its “eternal generation” dogma simply because the translation committees consist mostly of Trinitarians. The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Trinitarian bias is the primary reason that most English translations (which are virtually all based on the Nestle-Aland Critical text), do not follow the punctuation of that Greek edition in this instance because it would cast doubt on the “eternal generation” of the Son concept.
If John 1:3-4 is punctuated and read as it was in the first centuries of Christianity, and as the latest scholarly Greek editions punctuate indicate this passage, this necessarily pinpoints the Son’s origin out of God as being “the Beginning” of creation week. Solomon’s description of “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8:22-31, who was “begotten” by God and made “the Beginning of His ways for His works,” being the only-begotten Son of God. John’s prologue includes the fact that the Son had a point of origin of His conscious living Person as distinct from God.
When John 1:3-4 is read as it was understood by Christians who held this view regarding the Son, this passage supported His origin “in the beginning.” Consider the implications of this within the larger context of verses 1-5.
John 1:1-5 (LGV) 1 In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, and Logos was God. 2 This one was in the beginning with God. 3 Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated. 4 What has originated in Him was life, and the Life was the light of men, 5 and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not take hold of it.
Notice the intentional contrast between what originated “through Him” (Logos) and what originated “in Him.” Verses 1-3 place the one called Logos in the beginning with God, and the one through whom God created absolutely everything. Of course, “everything” does not include Logos (the Son) since He was the agent through whom everything was created. However, verse 4 claims that “life” itself originated “in Him,” making Logos the very first “Life” apart from God.
Paul stated that it is “God who gives life to all things.” Certainly this would be true of God giving life to “the only-begotten of the Father,” something essential to the language of “begetting.” Since “what has originated in Him was life,” this “Life” was God’s doing alone. Everything else “originated through Him” (Logos, the new Life). That “life” originated “in Him” means precisely the same thing that Paul meant when he wrote as follows:
Col. 1:15-18 (LGV) 15 He is the image of the God who is unseen, first-produced of all creation, 16 because through Him everything was created, what is in the skies and what is on the land, the seen and the unseen (including thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities). Everything has been created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before everyone, and everything has been established together through Him. 18 And He is the head of the Body (the assembly), who is The Beginning, …
It is hard to deny that John’s prologue was intended to reinforce Paul’s above statement, especially since after Paul’s martyrdom John took over the supervision of the churches of Asia Minor which Paul had established.
There is much in John’s prologue which parallels Paul’s statement above about Christ, demonstrating that John’s intent was to support Paul’s earlier teaching. This includes all of the following points:
A. The Origin of the Son:
Paul: “first-produced of all creation” … “who is The Beginning”
John: “What has originated in Him was life”
B. The Son existed with God at “the beginning” of Genesis:
Paul: “And He is before everyone”
John: “In the beginning was Logos, and Logos was with God, … He was in the beginning with God”
C. The Son was the Agent “through” whom God created all things:
Paul: “because through Him everything was created, what is in the skies and what is on the land, the seen and the unseen (including thrones, dominions, principalities, and authorities). Everything has been created through Him and for Him, … and everything has been established together through Him.”
John: “Everything originated through Him, and without Him nothing originated.”
D. The Son was the one seen as “God” because God has never been seen:
Paul: “He is the image of the God who is unseen”
John: “and Logos was God.” “Never before has anyone seen God. The Only-Begotten Son, the one being unto the Father’s bosom, that one declared Him.”
Unitarians reject all of the above points from both Paul and John and seek to explain them away by exegetical gymnastics. Trinitarians accept B, C, & D but they cannot allow point A, either Paul’s statement, “first-produced of all creation,” or in John’s statement, “What originated in Him was life.” Both statements indicate that the Son of God had an origin at a distinct point in time, the very beginning of creation week. This is totally incompatible with Trinitarianism which is why the NKJV/NIV/HCSB/CEB add the word “over” in Col. 1:15, “firstborn over all creation” rather than “first-produced of all creation” as the text is literally translated. The preposition “over” is not in the text nor is it implied by the genitive case of “all creation.” This addition to the text has the effect of eliminating the idea that the Son had an origin in time. The same is true when most English translations mistranslate John 1:3-4. The correct translation of this text is equally problematic for Unitarians. They acknowledge that the Son had an origin but deny that it was at the beginning of creation week.
There is absolutely no valid exegetical reason to take “first-produced” in Colossians 1:15 as a term referring to dominion over the modifying genitive (all creation). Nor is there any legitimate reason to place the period in John 1:3-4 where it is located in most versions. Both Trinitarians and Unitarians use this cover given to them by incorrect modern translations in these two passages. For Trinitarians, the faulty translation of these two verses allows them cover for their “eternally begotten” concept allowing for the Son to be co-eternal with the Father. For Unitarians, this allows them to claim that the Son did not exist until His birth in Bethlehem. However, proper exegesis and sound hermeneutics requires that we take these two statement literally, and that they provide positive linkage to the “begetting” statements in Proverbs 8 and Psalm 2:7. Both Colossians 1:15-20 and John 1:1-18 provide absolute proof that the Son of God was begotten (produced) first in relation to all things produced within the creation (thus overthrowing Trinitarianism’s “eternal generation,” while at the same time tying His production to the beginning of the creation, thus proving preexistence. This fact is literally the proverbial stone that kills two birds at once. The fact is, the earliest Christians got it right, and virtually every other theological system which departed from this initial understanding of Colossians 1 and John’s prologue got it wrong and remain in serious error on the most important doctrine in the Bible — who is Jesus.
 Clement, The Instructor, Bk. II, ch. ix
 Clement, Fragments, III.
 Origen, Against Celsus, Bk. VI, ch. v
 Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies, Bk. V, ch. iii.
 Verse 22 LXX
 1 Tim. 6:13
 John 1:14
 Some attempt to justify the translation “over all creation” by claiming that it is a “gentive of subordination.” However, a genitive of subordination is only possible when the noun that the genitive noun modifies requires subordinates, such as “God,” “king,” “governor,” or “master.” (See: Wallace, GGBB, p. 103-104). For example, in the clause “king of Israel,” the noun “king” requires subordinates and cannot be understood apart from the king’s counterparts, his subjects. Consequently, the addition of the genitive noun “of Israel” provides the limits and scope of the king’s dominion. However, the noun πρωτότοκος lit. “first-produced” does not imply a dominion or subordinates. It literally means first produced (sequentially). This term was used 135 times in the Old Testament (LXX) and 8 times in the New Testament. In every case it refers to being the first sequentially produced. When modified by a genitive, it means the first produced in relation to the genitive noun which defines the group of which his production was the first. It carries no inherent meaning of having dominion over others within that group. It is true that the “first-produced” child of a parent was given priority regarding favor from the father, especially regarding the inheritance. But this did not translate into his becoming sovereign over his siblings. It is used once metaphorically in Psalm 89:27 (LXX) where God says of David, “I will make him the firstborn.” But this was because David was the youngest of Jesse’s sons, when the oldest would be expected to have such an honor of being chosen king. This itself did not give David dominion, but rather indicated that he was the recipient of the greatest favor from God who exalted Him to be king ahead of his older brothers. This word was also used twice in the NT of Christ being the “first-produced from among the dead.” But again, “first” does not imply the highest rank, as in having sovereignty over the rest who are to be raised at His coming. Rather “first-produced” points to being the first sequentially to be resurrected to immortality as stated in Acts 26:23, “that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead.” Consequently, this term always indicates being first in sequence regarding production (first in origin as a mortal, or first in origin as an immortal in the resurrection). In the case of the Son of God, it refers to the ultimate “first-produced” by God in relation to the entire creation. As John states, “What originated in Him was life.”