[af_vet_1981]

Jesus didn't use "palon and Nicodemas didn't use palon because neither speaker is thinking , at that time, in Greek. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin speaking with the Holy One of Israel. While I do not doubt Messiah could speak in tongues, it is dissonant to imagine these two Jewish rabbis in the land of Israel discussing God in Greek. There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

[Springfield Reformer]

And if you read my at length response above to verga, you see that I speculate on the real possibility of an Aramaic conversation. The problem being that it is speculative. The Holy Spirit saw fit to give this to us in Greek, and for purposes of discussing what was said to the point of discovering meaning, that’s what we have to work with. In this particular case, the question comes down to whether “born again” could be a legitimate translation, and appears to be answered in the affirmative both in the Greek, and even more so if hypothetical Aramaic values are used. I’m not saying your point is wrong. Just it doesn’t address the problem being solved using Scripture as God gave it to us.

[CynicalBear]

>>it is dissonant to imagine these two Jewish rabbis in the land of Israel discussing God in Greek.<<

But the Holy Spirit chose to have the New Testament recorded in Greek and we can be assured He knew the meaning of words.