So you see Jason, genos is not "species" itself, but only when a context demands it as in Mat 13:47, where a net was dipped into the sea and a sample of every "kind" (genous) was drawn from the water. To pick and choose one word out of many which may apply, then dogmatically insist it is the only one which applies is not honest. John speaks of monogenees [1:18], not genous, so your application of "species" is incorrect. Jesus was of the species "homs sapien" until his resurrection, at which time he became the firstborn of a new species, one which is not dependent upon flowing blood for movement. His blood was shed on Calvary's cross. "Flesh and blood" will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, but Jesus is not "flesh and blood," he is "flesh and bone." It is a new species, of which he is firstborn. THAT is the only application that would utilize genous, but prwtotokos is used instead, so the word does not apply.
Or you can reference "Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament by Friberg, friburg, and Miller. It says basically what Zondervan's Lexicon presents. It also supplies "species" but in the same way as Zondervan. "Species" is therefore, not THE meaning, but is A meaning in some contexts.
The balance of your argument rests upon your understanding of genos meaning species, so I will not continue. consider and apply this information to your entire post and you will see why.
In the blood of Christ by the grace of God
In the grace of God by the blood of Christ