If you do say so yourself, but your attempts to negate such what is invalid, and in which you are ignoring things that refute you.
Solomon’s words are part of God inspired Scripture and mirror what God told sinning Adam, you will return to the dust..period.
Solomon’s words are indeed part of God inspired Scripture, but we must rightly divide the word of truth, (2Tim. 2:15) as to what is God's truth, not all of what God records is His doctrine. Thus, among other examples, is the counsel of James to Paul that almost got him killed, (Acts 21:22-24)
And here, if you regard Eccl. as a doctrinal nook like Romans, then as i showed you, you must agree that "There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. " (Ecclesiastes 2:24) "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. " (Ecclesiastes 8:15)
But which is contrary to such texts as Rm. 14:17; 1Cor. 8:8, and as with the dead knowing nothing, it reflects judgment based upon natural perception. Indeed, 9:5 must be read in context, which states
"For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun. " (Ecclesiastes 9:4-6)
Thus according to this judgment, the living are better off than the deceased, and the dead not only do not know anything but they have no rewards for ever, but all such are in this life, and which he further expresses .(vs. 7-10) Such is the perception of the natural man, and it is contextually obvious that this is what he is expressing.
However, in the NT the elect in this life are not better off, as here we groan, (Rm. 8:23) and death is what" is gain," as they indeed have a reward, indeed "a great recompense of reward" (Heb. 10:35) forever, and is something to look forward to, and living here cannot in any way be said to be better, contrary to Solomon judgment.
Scripture interprets Scripture, and the NT reveals the OT, and using Eccl. 9:5 cannot negate what other texts state.
The general resurrection is most relevant as until that point no one had come from the memorial tombs
First, despite what the Watchtower false prophet may teach, there is no "general resurrection," but two resurrections, "both of the just and unjust," the "resurrection of life", and the "resurrection of damnation," (Acts 24:14; cf. Lk. 14:14; Jn. 5:29) and which are separated by a thousand years:
"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. " (Revelation 20:5-6)
Secondly, some, rather than being dormant, did indeed come from their tombs after the resurrection of their Lord after "the way into the holiest" (Heb.9:8) was provided, testifying to having been loosed to go into glory:
"And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. " (Matthew 27:51-53)
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? " (Ephesians 4:8-9)
and to combine Abraham’s bosom with Paradise is something the Scriptures do not do. Nor do the Scriptures hint that Abraham’s bosom was a temporary stop for OT saints.
Scripture interprets Scripture and says more than what the Watchtower teaches, and which texts i provided but are ignored, for as "the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing," (Hebrews 9:8) "for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins, " (Hebrews 10:4) thus OT saints could not be with God upon death, contrary to NT believers. But "the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom" when Christ made the atonement for our sins, (Mt. 27:51) and He descended first into the lower parts of the earth and led captivity captive, and thus as affirmed in the NT, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.
Thus, rather than remaining in Sheol till the resurrection, the Lord said to the contrite criminal, "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. " (Luke 23:43) (See more on this later on) As the Lord did not go to glory that day, but first descended first into the lower parts of the earth, and as Abraham's bosom was not heaven, this supports Abraham's bosom as being paradise.
In addition, as shown but ignored, Lk. 16 does not qualify as a parable, regardless of your assertion.
Those like David or Job who died before Christ would just have to wait in death till Jesus resurrected them. Hence the vision of Moses and Elijah was just that, a vision, not a pulling of them from Abraham’s bosom to a mountain or a resurrection from the dead of them.
Another example of a forced interpretation, for the text nowhere says this was a mere vision as in a dream but that they were actually "with Him in the holy mount," (2Pt. 1:8) and there Moses and Elijah with Christ is what they saw, "optanomai / optomai," which is the same word which used to denote seeing a real being in many places, (Acts 20:25) including seeing the resurrected Christ (Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:43; Acts 1:3) - which we dare not make into a mere vision - . " (2 Peter 1:17-18) Thus Peter wanted to make literal dwellings for them.
In contrast, you have men who are supposed to be dead and cognizant of nothing having a conversation with their Lord!
Even the dying thief recognized any hope of remembrance would be “when you come into your kingdom”, not instantly at death.
"Even the dying thief .." So now a criminal's understanding of eschatology defines what the Lord meant by to day? Instead, if the criminal was hoping for mercy in a future day then that makes the specification of "to day" fitting, as rather than the future, the Lord told the criminal that he would be with Him that day in paradise, and thus not have to wait for a future acceptance.
And the attempt to place the comma after "to day," as if He needed to distinguish it from tomorrow, as He does in Lk. 13:32,33, is absurd. In contrast to a future hope for mercy, "to day meant just that, that "to day you will be with Me in Paradise," which is where he is now, while the last trump he and all deceased believers will receive a glorified body, as their Lord did.
Those events of Rev. 6 were yet to come when Jesus went forth to conquer in the midst of his enemies. (Acts 2:34,35).
The events of Rev. 6 are before the resurrection of the just, some of whom are preaching on the earth, (R. 7) and likely the remnant [who] were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven" (Revelation 11:13) also belong to the elect. And it is before the Lord comes to fight against Babylon (Rv. 19) with the resurrected saints and the 1k reign of Christ and the judgment of the damned. (Jude 1:14,15)
Luke 16 is a parable.
It is not for the accurate reasons i gave.
Since this seems to be the most salient part of your comment I’ll deal with it.
No, I’m not ignoring anything but attempting to stick with a central point here. If you are in error here then the rest falls too.
“Thus, rather than remaining in Sheol till the resurrection, the Lord said to the contrite criminal, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. “ (Luke 23:43) (See more on this later on) As the Lord did not go to glory that day, but first descended first into the lower parts of the earth, and as Abraham’s bosom was not heaven, this supports Abraham’s bosom as being paradise.”
You’re describing a kind of Purgatory Lite. Your narrative has Jesus being resurrected and going into the lower parts of the earth on the day that he spoke to the thief whereas Jesus said he was going to be in the grave(hades or sheol) for three days.
Is this where Abraham’s bosom and paradise are? In the lower parts of the earth?
You said concerning Luke 16 as a parable:
“It is not for the accurate reasons i gave.”
Your reasoning is not accurate and you are not “rightly dividing the Scriptures. For example your quote:
“And here, if you regard Eccl. as a doctrinal nook like Romans, then as i showed you, you must agree that “There is nothing better for a man, than that he should eat and drink, and that he should make his soul enjoy good in his labour. This also I saw, that it was from the hand of God. “ (Ecclesiastes 2:24) “Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun. “ (Ecclesiastes 8:15)”
And then you add:
“But which is contrary to such texts as Rm. 14:17; 1Cor. 8:8
....”
But here is what those verses say:
“For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 14:17)
And.
“But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better neither, if we eat not, are we the worse” (1 Cor 8:8)
One verse discusses welcoming a person with weak faith, the other foods offered to idols, neither are as you said, “contrary” to what Solomon said.
You did not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
Again you say:
“Another example of a forced interpretation, for the text nowhere says this was a mere vision as in a dream but that they were actually “with Him in the holy mount,” (2Pt. 1:8) and there Moses and Elijah with Christ is what they saw, “optanomai / optomai,” which is the same word which used to denote seeing a real being in many places, (Acts 20:25) including seeing the resurrected Christ (Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:43; Acts 1:3) - which we dare not make into a mere vision - . “ (2 Peter 1:17-18) Thus Peter wanted to make literal dwellings for them”
First 2 Peter 1:18 does not discuss the vision. And “mere vision” is your words not mine. In fact Jesus called it a “vision”. (Matt.17:9).
But by your reasoning Moses and Elijah were first sent to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom at death, recalled from Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (located in the earth somewhere) to be merely seen by Peter and the others and then presumably they would return to Paradise/Abraham’s bosom (where they would soon by joined by the thief) for a while until going to heaven.
Paradise/Abraham’s bosom must have a revolving door.
Unlike David, I might add who had to stay in Sheol/Hades according to Peter.(Acts 2)
You do not “rightly divide the Scriptures”.
Again you said:
“Thus, rather than remaining in Sheol till the resurrection, the Lord said to the contrite criminal, “Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. “ (Luke 23:43)”
Then neither Jesus nor the thief were really dead (a condition Jesus likened to sleep) but had been resurrected, brought to life from the death state, and Jesus wasn’t in Sheol/Hades three days but somewhere in Paradise/Abraham’s bosom.
“accurate reasons” you gave? Nope, not accurate, not according to “rightly divided Scripture”.
By the Bye, you should know the placement of that comma is the translators choice since many Greek manuscripts use no punctuation at all, the most notable exception being the Vatican 1209, which places the comma AFTER “today”.