Again, the term natural born Citizen had only one definition at the time it was written into our Constitution.
Natural-born is something we refer to in the English language as an adjective. It has meaning apart from the noun it modifies. You could better make your argument by making reference to the phrase: natural-born athlete, and consider that it refers to something about a person's blood or genes and not that he was born in Yankee Stadium. But you would rather make your one-sided arguments and not consider the merits of arguments opposed to your view. I suppose that is your right, but it isn't helpful.
ML/NJ
>> the term natural born Citizen had only one definition at the time it was written into our Constitution <<
You may be correct. But in any case, your point is not relevant because the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4) allows the Congress to change the definition of who is a citizen at birth, versus who must be “naturalized” to become a citizen.