Young's Literal Translation
Geneva Bible (1599)
One has to look at the various translations and see how seasoned scholars and theologians translate the text. Literally, the text doesn't seem to make sense by removing the comma. How do we know, for example, that Jesus didn't say: "Verily I say unto thee today, shalt thou be with me in Paradise?"
Or perhaps he said, "Verily I say to thee today, with me thou shalt be in the paradise." The word "paradise" is a Persian word meaning, "the king's park," which was a royal place of rest. It doesn't mean "heaven."
Given the fact that the scriptures clearly state that while Jesus' body was in the tomb, his spirit was in Paradise, or Hades (which includes Paradise, a place of rest, and Hell, a place of torment). Thus the "Apostles' Creed" states, "He descended into Hell." I concede that this creed is a work of men and not inspired by God; however, it reflects traditions and doctrines long in existence when it was penned. I refer, again, to the words of Origen, who was about as close to a first century Christian as one could hope for.
Given, too, that Jesus' phrase would have been completely redundant, even in Greek. For example, VERILY, or TRULY, both terms of affirmation, when added to, "I say unto you TODAY" (another term of affirmation), would be excessively repetitive! Thus, "Truly, I'm telling you today, shalt thou be with me in Paradise." Also, why didn't Jesus ever use that type of affirmation elsewhere? Many times he said, "Verily (or Truly) I say unto you..." but he never added the word "today" with the other term of affirmation. It also makes the end of the sentence lacking in meaning. Consider this. If it is affirmatory, let's remove "today" and render it thus:
Without punctuation, except the period, and without the affirmatory "Today," the sentence becomes a jumble. If we remove the "Truly I say unto you," the other statement of affirmation, and if we get rid of the period, another punctuation, we get this:
Given the complete lack of punctuation, we could very well reason that this is a question. If Jesus said to the malefactor, "Shalt thou be with me in Paradise," what would be the meaning? However, if we go back to the correct translation, with but one affirmation, we get:
Do you now see why virtually all translations of the Bible pretty much render it as the above? To do it any other way simply would not make sense. The Watchtowers I've read all say, essentially, "Let the Bible interpret itself," or, more recently, follow the guidance of the slave. But even the slave can't change things so fundamentally obvious.