The Society's notion of the earth being converted into a "paradise earth" without being destroyed runs against texts in the proto-apocalyptic and apocalyptic traditions that describe the present earth and/or heavens as being destroyed in the future (e.g. Psalm 102:25-26, Isaiah 51:6, Matthew 24:35, 2 Peter 3:5-7, 10-12, Revelation 20:11), to be replaced by a "new heavens and a new earth" (cf. Isaiah 65:17, 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1). These are the kind of scriptures that belong to a genre of eschatological expectation.
The favorite scriptures that the Society cites do not belong to eschatological expectation, and they are often read out of context and made to say more than they really state. 1 Chronicles 16:30 says that God created the earth to be "firm" and "unshakable" but this says nothing about it existing forever or that God cannot "shake" it or devastate it if he so wishes (cf. Job 9:6 "He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble", Joel 2:10 refers to the earth shaking on the Day of Yahweh, Isaiah 24:19 says "The earth is broken up, the earth is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken", Nahum 1:5 refers to the hills quaking and the mountains melting away, etc.). As it is, the psalm in 1 Chronicles 16 is a thanksgiving and stresses the blessings of God to the world; it would be a mistake to read a thanksgiving psalm as if it had eschatological reference. Psalm 104 also is a thanksgiving psalm for the glories of creation and the reference to the earth being "unshakeable forever and ever" also has little to do with the eschatological "Day of Yahweh" or "Day of Judgment" scenarios the prophets (and later apocalypsists) entertained. This is just another example of different writers (writing for different purposes) expressing different points of view. The author of Psalm 104 just had no concept of God destroying the earth and creating a new one, although Trito-Isaiah, the author of 2 Peter, and the author of Revelation certainly did. The Society thus picks and chooses which scriptures they want to privilege in constructing their own apocalyptic scenario of the End, just as others pick and choose other texts. But it is quite clear that the destruction of the earth is a scenario entertained in the OT and NT.
As for Psalm 37, this text also is interpreted to mean something different than it says. It contrasts the wicked with the righteous, and declares that the wicked will perish while the righteous will be blessed: "Trust in Yahweh and do what is good, make your home in the land and live in peace; make Yahweh your only joy and he will give you what your heart desires ... Those he blesses will have a land for their own, those he curses will be expelled" (Psalm 37:3-4, 22). This passage has no eschatological orientation (just like the thanksgiving psalms) and no concept of an individual "earthly hope" in which the meek will be given the planet earth to dwell for eternity. It simply says that in the here and now "Yahweh takes care of good men's lives, and their heritage will last forever" (37:18). This is no concept of an earthly paradise, for famines still come and "times of disaster" still come (v. 19). Interesting that the Society never notices this fact. Rather than inheriting a paradise earth, the text simply states that "the humble shall have a land for their own to enjoy untroubled peace" (v. 11), and rather than referring to individuals living forever, the text plainly refers to the posterity and descendents of the righteous who will prosper and not "be wiped out" (v. 28, 37-38). If anything it has the conquest of Canaan by the "righteous" followers of Yahweh in view, who have inherited the "promised land" which Yahweh promised to Abraham would be theirs to possess forever (cf. Genesis 12:7, 15:18). Compare Psalm 25:10-13, 78:55, 105:10-11, 125:3 which express the same thought and which also have the conquest of Canaan in view. The Society has put a spin on the passage to make it into a prophecy of a future paradise earth, but that is reading into the text what is not there.
The same thing goes for one of the most favorite scriptures the Society cites for a "paradise earth": Isaiah 65:17-25. This text does not say people will live forever, in fact it states the opposite, it says man will fulfill his days and die: "No more will be found the infant living a few days only, or the old man who does not fulfill his days. To die at the age of a hundred will be dying young and the one who fails to live to be a hundred would be thought accursed" (65:20). The thought is that people would once again have very long lifespans like the antediluvian patriarchs in Genesis before "completing" one's days; this is an OT idiom that refers to dying (peacefully) after living a full, complete life (cf. Exodus 23:26, 2 Samuel 7:12, 1 Chronicles 17:11, Job 36:11). Failing to live to a hundred, presently the upper limit in a lifespan, would be considered dying prematurely in the prophecy. The idea is still that one does complete one's days (even as some do still die before the age of 100) and this is perfectly in accord with OT concepts of death which was viewed as a natural part of life, even welcomed at times as earned rest (cf. Job 3:13-22, Psalm 13:3), occurring at its proper time (Job 5:26, Ecclesiastes 3:2, 7:17; cf. also Job 14:5, Psalm 139:16 in which the length of one's life is already predetermined) as the peaceful conclusion to a long life (cf. Genesis 15:15, 25:8; Judges 8:32; 1 Chronicles 29:28). The NWT however misinterprets hchwt' "one who fails/misses the mark" as "sinner" (with the KJV), and the Society bases on this a highly eisegetical interpretation of the verse that imposes on it their unique interpretation of Revelation 20:7-8, i.e. those who will "die" in the paradise earth will be those who are in "rebellion" with God when Satan is released after the millennium. There is nothing whatsoever about rebellion in the passage in Trito-Isaiah which refers in general to old people fulfilling their days.