The NIV translates John 1:3 as follows: "Through Him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."
Almost all translations translate John 1:3 like the NIV. One of C.S. Lewis's predecessors, George MacDonald, challenges that translation and bases an entire sermon on a divergent translation here.
Look again at the second independent clause, particularly "nothing was made that has been made." What does the "that has been made" add to the sentence? Nothing of substance! It's oxymoronic (and perhaps plain moronic) to say that nothing has been made that has been made, since all things that have been made are all and only the things that have been made!
As MacDonald would have it, we should translate verses 3 and 4 as follows:
"All things were made through Him and without Him was not one thing made. [Stop] That which was made in Him was life, and the life was the light of men."
According to MacDonald, such a translation has much theological significance. Is MacDonald's principle of charity at work justifiable? Should we prefer a translation which--all other things being equal--has a better theological upshot and is more linguistically felicitous? I say, yes.