Is sin simply the function of the lack of knowledge of oneself?

I never use the word "sin". I always use the word mistake. I believe we make mistakes, as you well said it, we miss the mark. The reason why we make mistakes is because we are still progressing spiritually. We are like children in a school, learning lessons and going through tests. We are not in the same grade though.

Peace!

Sin as both a word and action is part of a certain dogma. And in that dogma as does manifest of all dogmas, it can be thought or held as real, though anyone outside that given dogma can readily translate its meaning into terms familiar to their own personal and relevant respective dogmas, their personal philosophies, and literary references. And this comes to the point that anything can be held as real and made so if the willingness and belief and imagery is strong enough that the proponents of the dogmas may come to instill life into these precepts.

Acordingly, a physical scientist, for example, may frame 'sin' as no more than a causal event with an effect. A Christian theologian, again, may frame 'sin' in terms the world over has been long made familiar with, so much that it has been made part of everyday vernacular: no one needs to explain what sin is and what is meant by its use; or somewhat they think they know its true meaning or purpose.

Still others view sin as no more than a turn, a device of control to evince certain inertias into occurring and setting, made fixed like that of concrete into any a collective consciousness, just as is found prominent among peasants of certain circles of people today. One might not unfairly framed sin as still another ploy, a tool of exploitation. Sin was a feature got-up by clever thinkers and scribes whose intentions may have indeed served of great purposes when first devised, and were purposeful then -- but no longer are they viable; secondly, that it is, just as is guilt or morals, no more than a form of tax that need not be paid; this, because an individual has been born already with all the needed resource within him or her that he or she needs no such constraints as sin cast upon him or her.

When these precepts were first formulated, the world was not as it is today. There needed a greater guideline to quell man's barbaric tendencies; and so a brow-beating device was required concocting to keep the then society in some measure of control, beneath which set fear. And so sin became a most apt and clever if masked way of denoting cause and effect, which belief thereof sustains to this very day. It was and is, nevertheless, an expression that caused the overall consciouness to introvert, and needlessly so. Whereas it is in truth a form of deceit and deception. The designers of the sin concept knew all the while that one's conscience is truly all one needs to progress and develop and grow; and that mistakes are made and will be in any case, no matter who he or she might be. But in those earlier millennia, so savage, so coarse was society that a precision was needing made and set up that could be made integral and found plausible to consensual reality. What was left to complete this was simply to attach the word God onto it, and voila, a supposed truism is born.

It is indeed a man-made invention, however. One must bear in mind that Jesus' disciples and immediates had not achieved his state of merit, thus much of what he taught was not truly understood, for he had not finished teaching them; and so much truth was lost following his passing; and much that was later transcribed and put down on paper were interpretations of interpretations of interpretations. And this is always the great risk to run whenever transferring the spoken word to the written word; something that the great Socrates knew all to well.

Per Merriam-Webster, "sin" can be simply a "fault" (one-word definition) or it can be an offense, most specifically an offense against (god).

One could consider the lack of self-knowledge to be a fault, which does keep it a simple sin.

I suppose the lack of self-knowledge could constitute an "offense" in some manner, but that would seem to be stretching it a bit.

The easiest answer is very often the most reliable, why complicate things?

Sin is simply part of the learning process. Some people do not realise that something is wrong just by theorising about it, they have to experience it and see for themselves the wrong they have done and its consequences. There is no sin; that is a concept to manipulate people some religious systems have invented

Sin is a man made concept for acts that cause guilt, or pain to others. Therefore even if you were to know oneself, still wouldn't make a bit of difference if you caused pain to some one else or you felt guilty, but sin like I said above is a man made concept.

You need a owners manual to know your own mind? You do not know the difference between right and wrong?

This folks is the reason all of us need the Lord Jesus!!

God bless!

Sin is nonexistent. It's just a fancy word for an act that causes guilt.

No.

Sin is breaking God's commandments.

Good Question but highly subjective.

If I error.... it is I who acts... and myself that sees and corrects the method for the next attempt. Is it not?

sin is the wrong that is done, that well eventually harm your spiritual self.

that is if you believe in spirituality in the first place