Well now , *you* just changed the definition of the word . You also do not define the "mark" making your definition useless . The translators know the word as good as any . Do you know of any translations that do not use the word "sin" but use the phrase "miss the mark" ?
And , in your OP , you did not prove that "sin" was defined as "miss the mark but ...
"Literally refer to" does not mean "definition" .
My biggest problem with using an origin of a word instead of its later use as used in the Scriptures is "missing the mark" or target leads into people calling sins "slips" . "oops , didn't mean to " . Or , a worse use would be to load all sorts of burdens onto people about not hitting a mark perfectly and so into sin . " Yes , you obeyed the Lord . But , did you do it *perfectly* . If not , you missed the mark and you are in sin . " So many preachers thrive on adding guilt upon guilt onto their charges .
Of course , if the mark or target is the law ( meaning the "authority of the Scriptures ) , there is a huge problem .
Yet , it is clear that sin is disobedience to *a* law even though it is not *the* law . That is why I quoted three passages that show that sin is disobedience to *a* law while it is clearly not *the* law .
Another passage to consider with respect to sin being connected to laws but not necessarily to *the* law ...
Clearly, this thread is useless to you, maybe you should move to another thread.
I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me. I do find it uncool to try to derail a thread because you dont agree.
If you posted scripture and provided evidence to support your disagreement everyone would be edified. Your claims are what seem bogus and unsupported.
Here is a rebuttal of your arguments.
Connected to each verse in the blueletterbible, is a tab for Strong's concordance and Heb/Greek lexicon.
The Strong's concordance numbers shows that when you click on h2398
The word 'chata' is translated 'SIN' in the Approved Version (KJV) 188 times.
AV —
sin 188,
purify 11,
cleanse 8,
sinner 8,
committed 6,
offended 4,
blame 2,
done 2,
fault 1,
harm 1,
loss 1,
miss 1,
offender 1,
purge 1,
reconciliation 1,
sinful 1,
trespass 1
Bible definitions given are..............
1) to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness
a) (Qal)
1) to miss
2) to sin, miss the goal or path of right and duty
3) to incur guilt, incur penalty by sin, forfeit
b) (Piel)
1) to bear loss
2) to make a sin-offering
3) to purify from sin
4) to purify from uncleanness
c) (Hiphil)
1) to miss the mark
2) to induce to sin, cause to sin
3) to bring into guilt or condemnation or punishment
d) (Hithpael)
1) to miss oneself, lose oneself,
wander from the way
2) to purify oneself from uncleanness
Should I be accused of changing definition when words normally have multiple uses and definitions?
Why should I have to define what "mark" means, if it used to define sin in both old and new Testatment....Hebrew and Greek?
Does it take more than common sense to understand that 'a target' is 'a mark'?
Clue:A "root word" does not mean old use vs modern use, it means that other words are stemmed from it. (example: sun, sunny, sunlight.....sin, sinned, sinning )
Here is a text that used both 'chattah' and 'chata' interchangeably to describe sin.
For his sins
h2403חטאת chatta'ath
which he sinned
h2398חטא chata'
in doing
h6213עשה `asah
evil h7451רע ra`
in the sight
h5869עין `ayin
of the LORD,
h3068יהוה Yĕhovah
in walking
h3212ילך yalak
in the way
h1870דרך derek
of Jeroboam,
h3379ירבעם Yarob`am
and in his sin
h2403חטאת chatta'ath
which he did,
h6213עשה `asah
to make Israel
h3478ישראל Yisra'el
to sin.
h2398חטא chata' 
