Words have a semantical range of meaning. Hermeneutics, not textual criticism (psacramento), would be the issue for interpretation. Textual criticism would deal with variants if different words were used. In this case, the Greek word is not in dispute, so interpretative (herm.) principles are needed. First mention does NOT work in every case since authors can easily use the same word in a different context to mean different things. The same is true in English. The only reason NWT does not consistently translate it as worship for Jesus is because they deny His Deity, not because the context demands it (Heb. 1:6; Rev. 4-5 argues against them). Cumulative evidence shows that Jesus is God, so it is better to put worship than obeisance as the Spirit intended (cf. NWT about 69/70 times translates 'ego eimi' I am, EXCEPT at Jn. 8:58, where it wrongly says 'I have been' to avoid the Jehovahistic implications if they translated it consistent with every other passage). Jesus is God of gods, King of kings, Lord of lords, Alpha and Omega, I AM, etc., worthy of worship because He is equal with the Father and of the nature of God vs angel/man. WT must distort all of the Deity verses to avoid trinitarian implications at all costs. If they would use obeisance as full worship of God/Father, then we would not object. They are biased, sectarian, inconsistent (just because a word can have a range of meanings does not mean they are all equally valid to plug into a context arbitrarily to suit one's purposes).
