Sure there is - the correct option, the one which doesn't start out with an apologist narrowly defining a word for the benefit of that apologist's argument. The one which discerns the difference between giving homage due to a king and worshiping God. The contrived premise schtick is right out of the handbook of psychological manipulation. That's not directed at you; I am merely pointing out how this stuff is passed on to the sheep by wolves dressed as shepherds, and then the sheep tell the other sheep, and then all the sheep get swallowed up and don't know what ate them. Nothing jumped into the sheepfold, and the shepherd stayed on watch, yet...
It's not uncommon to see in Christian writings these sorts of phrases sprinkled about:
"Every serious student of the Bible knows..."
or
"Those who deny [the trinity]..."
As if the eager reader isn't a serious student if he doesn't already "know" such-and-such, or that whosoever denies a certain doctrine is denying the truth. That's the crafty set-up: state the defacto established "truths", then follow with more "truths". These teachers will have their reward for their serpent-like tactics.
People are so accustomed to that kind of subtle manipulation, that they don't see it. They not only don't see it, they unwittingly replicate it. It's how they are taught (infected). It's the life cycle of a virus.
John 9:29-41
29 We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is.
30 The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvelous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes.
31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
32 Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
33 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.
34 They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
For judgment I am come into this world...
Bad eyes that "see" with perfect vision are already at home in the darkness. If the light therein be darkness, how great that darkness.
Burns me up that because of the ubiquity of deceit, when the truth appears, it can be perceived as yet another lie. In any case, the right answer is always worth the wait. The truth is always worth the dogged pursuit of it. The Messiah, the embodiment of truth, is worth the wait. He rectifies all things, so he's worth every effort to push past the noise and confusion in order to see him clearly.
These words aren't defined by apologists, they are ancient Greek words and the meanings are well known, and apparent by comparing their usage in the text.
The word in question in both verses I quoted is "proskyneō", this word is also used twice in John 4:20, by the Sadducee woman, both clearly speaking of worship due to God alone. Same author, same word, same book, same meaning. It is you whose entire argument depends on narrowly defining the word to mean only one thing, in a futile attempt to avoid the context of the verses I posted, which clearly show people falling down and worshiping Jesus after recognizing him as God due to the extraordinary miracles he was working.