Sin has been described as "Missing the Mark" but

The obvious answer is to do a Bible Word Study on "sin" or "ἁμαρτία".  This will give you lots of raw data for which to sift.

painfree said:

Is there Logos 4.5 support for the thought that Sin is missing the mark because you are shooting in the opposite direction and if so can you describe how you find that in Logos 4.5 ?

I agree that the best and most profitable exercise would be to perform a complete word study and use your BDAG and HALOT if you have them.

In terms of other reference works, I searched my Logos library for "missing the mark" AND direction

Found the following section in the Dictionary for Theological
Interpretation of the Bible. (I underlined and bolded the pertinent words/section)

The Essence of Sin

Although universally acknowledged by the tradition,
theological interpreters have developed no consensus about the nature and root
of sin, and there are no ecumenical doctrines that define the essence of sin.
In the late patristic period, divergent accounts of the origin or foundation of
sin developed. The Eastern monastic tradition identified eight "evil thoughts"
that ascended from temptations of the flesh to spiritual dangers such as sloth
and pride (Cassian). In contrast, the Western pastoral tradition formulated the
sequence from a foundational pride to the outworkings of sin in lust and
gluttony (Gregory the Great). In the post-Reformation West, definitions of sin
were seen as church-dividing issues (cf. Trent, Sessio V; The Formula of
Concord, art. 1).

The lack of consensus about the essence of sin reflects the
diversity of scriptural terminology: hamartia (missing the mark), parabasis
(transgression), adikia (unrighteousness), asebeia (impiety), anomia
(lawlessness), ponēria (depravity), and epithymia (evil desire). Furthermore,
the rich OT vocabulary of prostitution and other forms of idolatrous defilement
adds distinctive color to biblical depictions of human sinfulness. Finally, the
Scriptures offer divergent descriptions of the root or cause of sin: pride goes
before the fall (Prov. 16:18); love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim.
6:10); the evil tongue is the source of iniquity (James 3:6).

Two narrative moments in Scripture exemplify the difficulty
of specifying the nature of sin. Genesis 3:1-7 depicts the original
transgression of Adam and Eve. In a homily on this passage, the influential
patristic interpreter John Chrysostom retells the story without settling on a
single explanation for the fall. He moves from serpent, to Eve, to Adam, drawing
in envy, negligence, ignorance, disobedience, and pride. The fall has no
single, identifiable cause. The multiple directions of temptation are present
in the threefold temptation of Jesus, which the patristic tradition linked to
the triad of evil itemized in 1 John 2:16. An even greater plurality
characterizes the Gospel accounts of Jesus' passion. An atmosphere of
blindness, deception, complicity, fear, greed, collective madness, and menace
characterizes the scene in Jerusalem, and the narrative resists efforts to
resolve sin into a single form or cause.

The diverse and allusive biblical witness to the reality of
sin encourages a fundamentally negative definition. Sin is not an ontological
category. It is not a function of embodiment or finitude. For Augustine, sin is
disordered desire, not desire itself. Sin is perverse love. Nor can sin be
reduced to a single, fundamental motive, such as pride. Instead, sin is a
temporal category. Augustine uses the image of weight, describing human
personality as dynamic and always moving either upward to God or downward
toward corruption. This image captures a patristic consensus that sin is a
direction of life away from God. For this reason, as Karl Barth has argued most
forcefully, sin is most visible and evident in contrast to the righteousness
and holiness of God, revealed in Jesus Christ. The idolatry described by Paul
in Rom. 1 is revealed by the possibility of true worship.

Although sin is a personal and not ontological reality, a
function of will and not nature, the role of sin in the drama of salvation has
definite features.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier
and N. T. Wright, Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible
(London; Grand Rapids, MI.: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005), 749.