@Romeo Fabulini,
I'll give you the answer because clearly you missed the part where I asked you a question. Jesus was not raised until three days later, so the robber would not have been with him that very day. Jesus certainly told him that very day though. If you wish to assert the comma where your translation places it, you will need to explain to me why the robber was not with him that very day.
To clarify, Jesus actually said "you will be with me in paradise." There are several words in the Greek Lexicon for "with", why do you suppose Jesus chose to use "meta" which was not an intimate term?
Note Matthews use of the same term, "I am with (meta) you always, even unto the end of the world" Matthew 28:20
Jesus did not physically remain with his disciples did he? You should also consider how many times God declared himself to be "with" his loyal followers? Abraham was also spoken of as "walking with the true god" but God was not physically present in the same place as these was he?
If you wish to establish that the word "with" always means to be physically present in the same place, then you must also argue every other occurrence also. If you agree though that the term was used separately to denote different levels of closeness, then you cannot declare the translation simple without seeking out concordance from supporting scripture. Otherwise you are merely pushing your own conjecture.
The other word we disagree on is paradise, however your assertion that the paradise is heaven relies heavily on the above issue. Jesus never referred to his father being in paradise, nor that he was headed to a paradise did he? rather that he was headed to heaven.
The other use of Paradeisos in the Christian Greek scriptures is interestingly enough the one you raised before in Revelation 2 verse 7 which describes Eden. Added to that the literal meaning of the word which is grove (group of trees) and park (an area of open space provided for recreational use)" at what other point in the bible is there a suggestion of trees in heaven?
In simple terms, your interpretation requires far more support than you state. I may well be wrong, however I have not seen enough evidence to accept your word for it. Do you have more evidence?