What your saying Mr. villa is that this word, should be translated "conceived" in one passage (to match your understanding) and then the exact same word translated "born" in the next 4 passages of scripture. Not to add that you seem unable to find any acceptable (or not so acceptable) sources that would agree with your translation. On this,
one of the most important and defining truths of most Protestant groups! Are you really surprised that some would disagree in absolute terms? No Mr. Villa, you are in error and are teaching error on this very important issue.
Let us look again at the text with the Greek:
Joh 3:3 Jesus <Iesous> answered <apokrinomai> and <kai> said <epo> unto him, <autos> Verily, <amen> verily, <amen> I say <lego> unto thee, <soi> Except <ean me> a man <tis>
be born <gennao> again, <anothen> he cannot <dunamai> <ou> see <eido> the kingdom <basileia> of God. <theos>
4 Nicodemus <Nikodemos> saith <lego> unto <pros> him, <autos> How <pos> can <dunamai> a man <anthropos>
be born <gennao> when he is <on> old <geron>? can <me> <dunamai> he enter <eiserchomai> the second time <deuteros> into <eis> his <autos> mother's <meter> womb, <koilia> and <kai>
be born <gennao>?
5 Jesus <Iesous> answered, <apokrinomai> Verily, <amen> verily, <amen> I say <lego> unto thee, <soi> Except <ean me> a man <tis>
be born <gennao> of <ek> water <hudor> and <kai> of the Spirit, <pneuma> he cannot <ou> <dunamai> enter <eiserchomai> into <eis> the kingdom <basileia> of God. <theos>
6 That which is born <gennao> of <ek> the flesh <sarx> is <esti> flesh; <sarx> and <kai> that which
is born <gennao> of <ek> the Spirit <pneuma> is <esti> spirit. <pneuma>
Lets read vs 4 very carefully, in response to the Lords statement that one must be "born-again", Nicodemus ask how can a man enter his mothers womb the second time
and be born. Not "conceived"
So it is your belief, that "gennao" is translated "born" 4 times in these following scriptures, but is to be translated "conceived" again in verse 3?