That’s a very good paraphrase adding no clarification whatsoever, which is just as ambiguous, imprecise. Do you believe that a perichoretic Person of God, after eternity, once, in all infinity, solely and completely became a person? Here*
It would seem so as the literary ambiguities and imprecision of the quote pose more questions than they answer.
because the Logos, who was with the monadic ground of being substance and who was the monadic ground of being substance [that’s a logical impossibility, but literarily allowable, or ‘John’ meant two different things by God? God the substance and then one of its Persons?], through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made that has been made - and who became flesh* and dwelt among us - this [Person of] only God, who is at the Father [Person of God]’s side, has made the otherwise unseeable God [substance] known.
Again, did the Son Person of the God substance inclusively, totally, wholly, solely, completely, uniquely, once, for all time, all space, all worlds, all creation, exclusively, coterminously collapse in to an ovum, a germ of creation, dirt, star dust?