Paradise: check the wording, then the context.

Compare the short phrases, not just the conclusion drawn from them:

The book groups Psalm 25:13 with Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 29 and 34: the NWT repeatedly chooses possession and earth, while its ESV/NIV comparisons use inheritance and land. These repeated choices within the same motif are worth examining together, not as six independent proofs.

The question is whether this psalm's setting establishes a promise about the entire planet. The English word alone cannot settle that question.

The book acknowledges both inherit/possess and land/earth as lexical possibilities. The NIV also uses earth in Matthew 5:5, with a cross-reference to Psalm 37:11. Earth is therefore not uniquely NWT or automatically a mistranslation. Read the psalm's repeated contrast between the righteous and the wicked, then explain what supports the wider application.

Edition distinction: this is a cross-translation land/earth contrast, not a 1984-to-current NWT change from land to earth or from in to on. Both NWT editions already use earth; on/upon by itself does not establish geography.

In the older wording, the seasonal cycles continue for the duration of the earth. The revision instead makes the earth the subject of a never-ceasing statement about those cycles. That restructuring makes permanent earthly continuity more explicit in the English sentence.

Does this verse tell us how long the earth will exist—or what will continue while it exists? Those are different claims.

A promise that applies while something exists does not, by itself, establish its lifespan. Equally, that qualification does not predict that the earth must end. The book's point is the translation boundary: explain the revised wording rather than treating it as its own proof. Any wider case for earthly permanence needs its other passages assessed separately.

The NWT puts the comma after today. The book's ESV, KJV and NIV comparisons put it before today. In the first reading, today dates Jesus's speaking; in the second, it dates being with him in Paradise. Moving the comma changes the timing the English reader hears.

Context must justify the placement. Neither side can appeal to a supposedly original modern comma as the decisive evidence.

The book favors same-day fulfillment: Jesus's usual introductory formula is already complete, the criminal asks about the coming Kingdom, and Luke repeatedly connects salvation with today. Its argument is contextual, not that the other grammatical attachment is impossible.

The NWT's own study note acknowledges both attachments and defends its choice with death/resurrection chronology, Semitic parallels and minority translation or commentary support. The real question is which contextual case explains this particular reply better.

This comparison addresses when the promise is fulfilled. The comma alone does not establish Paradise's location or every aspect of future hope. Read the existing Luke comparison.