Yes, it unequivocally does. Sheol is **not** the place of dead, rotting, physical bodies, *nor* is it the place of the spiritually dead. It's the place where the souls of the dead are. There is no pragmatic interpretation of this scripture other than the one that says that the dead are entirely unconscious.

## Is There Any Other Way? ##
Ecclesiastes 9:5 is a little more ambiguous than 9:10;

>"For the living know that they will die, but **the dead know nothing**. They have no further reward, because the memory of them is forgotten."

Does the author mean the spiritually dead? Does he mean dead, physical bodies? Many have tried to interpret it as such. Ecclesiastes 9:10, however, **cannot** under *any* circumstances be taken to be talking about dead bodies/spiritually dead. Why? Because Sheol is incontrovertibly the place of dead souls; ask any reputable scholar or assess any Hebrew concordance. The author makes it clear that *in Sheol*, the place where all dead souls belong, knowledge/thinking ability/wisdom/work is possessed by no one.


Also, notice how the scripture does not say the dead in Sheol have no knowledge of *what is occurring apropos the living/life*. The passage does *not* say that there is no knowledge being acquired about the earth and its happenings in Sheol. What it says is;

>Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is **no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol**, to which you are going."

As you can see, it does not make a reference to life, the living, the earth, or anything of the such when it comments on knowledge, wisdom, etc. The only location in question is Sheol. 

It straightforwardly says what it says; that those in a **state of death** *in* **Sheol** have **no work**, **no device/thinking ability**, **no knowledge**, and **no wisdom**, end of story; plain and uncomplicated(I didn't say plain and easy-to-swallow/agreeable). To say anything otherwise would be to go beyond what is written(i.e. to add to scripture what *clearly* isn't found), which we are warned against by the apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 4:6;

>1 Corinthians 4:6 "I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us **not to go beyond what is written**, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another."

Paul's words seem like a precursor to **Occam's razor**, don't you agree? While we could posit that the correct interpretation of "*there is no knowledge in Sheol*" is actually "*there is no knowledge of the happenings of the earth or of those living on it in Sheol*", it is orders of magnitude more reasonable to simply interpret "*there is no knowledge in Sheol*" as "*there is no knowledge in Sheol*", and anything more than that when unwarranted by the text itself(i.e. there is nothing in the text to suggest otherwise) is not only *unnecessary*, but makes for a hermeneutically flawed interpretation.

Notwithstanding that if you interpreted "knowledge" as "knowing about what goes on in earthly life", so as to stay consistent within the **immediate context** of Ecclesiastes 9:5, you'd have to say the same about "device", "wisdom", and "work". Do the dead not have *wisdom* about what happens on the earth? Do they not have *device* about what happens on the earth? Do the dead have *work* about what happens on the earth? That's all pretty much nonsense... You could, of course, always say that the author is informing us that the dead have no wisdom, device, or work ***period***, but then you'd be forced to say the same about knowledge, no? You don't get to pick and choose which is talking about which and blow the context to hell(no pun intended). Either the entire passage is with regards to earthly happenings, or it's not.

## Does Ecclesiastes Support the Sadducees? ##

Does Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 deny the resurrection? No.
>Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 "**All things come alike to all**: there is **one event** to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good and to the clean and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinner; and he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is **one event unto all**: yea also, the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the dead."

Notice this scripture does **not** state that death is the one and *only* event that all people share, but that death is one event that all people share, i.e. that death is the minimum event that all humans share in participating in.

To illustrate with a simple statement; "I and my wife going to Disneyland is the one thing we will certainly do together." Does that statement imply that going to Disneyland is the one and *only* thing me and my wife will do together on our vacation, thus excluding the possibility that we share in any other events? It's *possible* to interpret it that way, but you could also interpret it to mean that the event of me and my wife going to Disneyland together is the **minimum of events** we will participate in together. Such an interpretation does not forbid us from participating in any *other* events together.


Death being one event all humans participate in is not mutually exclusive with the event of all humans being resurrected. To be clear, I am *not* interpreting V3 idiomatically. I am showing why Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 saying that death is "one event" that all share does not necessitate that we interpret it as the *one and only* event that all share(in fact, it seems that interpreting the text in such a manner is more idiomatic than not). It can just as easily be interpreted as the **minimum of events** that all people share in participating in, or simply one event that all humans participate in, with no reference to the happenings(or lack thereof) of any other events(e.g. the resurrection). That is the plain reading of the scripture. It is not necessary to take it as saying that death is the only possible event all humans share, excluding the resurrection in the process. Thus, Ecclesiastes 9:2-3 does not contradict the resurrection in any manner.


As you can see, Ecclesiastes 9:10 unambiguously and indisputably proves that the dead **know naught**, neither have they wisdom, thinking ability, or work of any kind, hence corroborating what is told at Ecclesiastes 9:5, Psalm 6:5, Psalm 88:10-12, Psalm 115:17, Psalm 146:4, and Isaiah 38:18-19, bringing everything together in total harmony.