Biblical reference to our new life in Christ by the Greek word 'gennao' is sometimes translated along the lines of 'begetting' and sometimes along the lines of 'birth' (such as being 'born again.')  But these events are clearly distinct in their operating, and in their significance.  Begetting is an act of the male that ignites new life in the womb of the woman.  Birth is an action of the mother and/or child that occurs nine months after the new life has been formed.  Birth is the visible presentation of the new life to the watching world.

So in the regeneration of mankind, which translation is best?   Are we 'born again,' or are we 'begotten again?'  Begetting and birth are utterly distinct actions and events.  If violence is done to this translation, violence will be done to our understanding of the spiritual event.

Because the normal usage of 'gennao' refers to the male act of begetting, and the less common usage refers to the act of  'birth,' absent any contextual markers favoring one translation over the other, we would naturally prefer the underlying term 'beget,' with the resultant translation as 'begotten again' or 'regenerated' rather than 'born again.'

Many Christians point to Jesus' conversation with Nicademous in John 3 for the contextual marker they seek.  In comparing the spiritual event 'gennao' to an equivalent physical event, Jesus teaches that the physical event involves 'water.'  Rushing headlong to judgment, many Christians argue that the term 'water' is consistent with the image of the amniotic fluid that fills the uterus and bursts during child birth.

However, according to the scientific method, something does not constitute evidence for a theory simply because it is consistent with a theory.  It is evidence for a theory only if it consistent with a first theory, and inconsistent with a second theory.

But in identifying the physical process described in John 3 by the term 'water,' which is said to be analogous to the spiritual process Jesus was explaining, the term 'water' is equally suited, or perhaps even better suited, for describing the process of 'begetting' than it is for supporting child birth.   Even Strong%u2019s Concordance notes that the term 'water' can refer to seminal fluid.  Seminal fluid is present at the onset of life, and is associated with the male act of 'begetting.'  It has nothing to do with the 'birthing' process that occurs nine months after life has begun.

At this point, both theories are strongly represented by the evidence.  The term 'gennao' is more frequently used in reference to the male act of begetting, and therefore holds a strong preference for this reason.  Both terms also fit the context of John 3, wherein Jesus describes the analogous physical process as involving 'water.'  However, a verse in the First Epistle of John becomes, in scientific terminology, the 'critical experiment.'  It presents data which favors one theory, and is plainly contrary to the other theory.

In 1 John 3:9, we read:

Whoever has been born / begotten of God does not sin, for His seed ('sperma' in Greek) abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born / begotten of God.

The Greek word gennao occurs twice in the above verse, and on both occasions, we have translated it by the alternative English words "born" and "begotten" which represent alternative theories.  Common experience informs us that we are born from our mother's womb, but begotten in our mother's womb by our father's seed or 'sperma.'  This usage is corroborated by Scripture.  There is only one verse in the entire Bible in which the word 'sperma' refers to the 'female seed.'  It is the 'proto-evangelum' found in Genesis 3:15, wherein Scripture prophecies that "the seed of the woman" will bruise the serpent's head.  In the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, uses the Greek word 'sperma.'  The prophecy is uniformly regarded by Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Scholars, as being a messianic prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah.  It is the only time in Scripture that the word 'sperma' is used of the female seed.  Apart from this prophecy of the virgin birth, when used in the context of humans or animals, the word 'sperma' always refers to the seed of the male.

In 1^st John 3:9, the regeneration is linked to the sperma of God.  The presence of the word 'seed' (sperma) requires that the event described by the verb 'gennao' refers to the male act of begetting, not the act of birth.  This verse forms the critical experiment that distinguishes one theory over the other.

The significance is not a question of male vs. female.  God does not have sex, He has gender.  The significance goes to the fundamental distinction between the nature of begetting and the nature of being birthing.  Birth records the first time that a new life is publicly manifest to the world.  Begetting, however, goes to the very creation of that new life.  And it is to this event, the very creation of new life, that every passage dealing with regeneration properly refers.