Did the New World Translation lead to any doctrinal changes?

The difficulty here is ascertaining whether changed doctrines came before the publication of the NWT, or after it. As the people responsible for producing the NWT seem loath to admit to having held to major doctrinal errors except up until around the 1930s, it's hard to say. The language the JW leaders employ is that of Jehovah causing "increased light" so that they are now "clearer" about doctrines than they were decades ago. They seem to believe in "progressive revelation".

However, there is one doctrine that might have developed after the original NWT, for the latest 2013 edition of the NWT translates certain words differently than previously. This has to do with the doctrine of life after death. In their 2013 edition of NWT, they render sheol and hades every time as ‘death’. That the one word 'death' is being used for every reference in the Bible to sheol and hades shows an astonishing attempt to simplify a complex subject, perhaps in the hope that JWs will not think beyond the idea of physical 'death'. It is tied up with the JW teaching that there is no conscious, aware part of a human that survives physical death. If they are wrong about that, you can be sure they are wrong to translate 'death' every time sheol or hades occurs! However, it's possible to examine the problem from the starting point of the JWs own admissions about the various words in the Bible that deal with the state of the dead.

In the JW 'Insight On The Scriptures' book they admit that the Hebrew word for 'grave' is qe'ver: "The Hebrew word qe'ver is the common word used to designate a burial place, a grave, or a graveyard. (Ge 23:7-9; Jer 8:1; 26:23) The related word qevurah' similarly may refer to an earthen grave or to a tomb excavated in rock. - Ge 35:20; 1 Sa 10:2 "In Greek the common word for grave is ta'phos (Mt 28:1), and the verb form (tha'pto) means 'bury'. (Mt 8:21,22)... "Since these Hebrew and Greek words refer to an individual burial place or grave site, they are often used in the plural as referring to many such graves. They are, therefore, distinct from the Hebrew she'ohl' and its Greek equivalent hai'des... [which words must always be used in the singular.] "Nevertheless, since one's entry into Sheol is represented as taking place through burial in an individual grave or at a burial site, words pertaining to such places of interment are used as parallel though not equivalent terms with Sheol." (Vol. 1 pages 994-5)

Now, JWs need to ponder that. Why, despite the admission of their leaders that a word completely different to sheol needs to be translated 'grave', are they trying to say that it's just sheol and hades that they have translated as 'grave'? They've just admitted that sheol is not the same as the grave! The grave is but an entrance into sheol! So, if sheol lies beyond the grave, what is it, and where is it, and what is the condition of those who go beyond the grave and end up in sheol?

The JWs have here admitted that the word for 'grave' is NOT an equivalent of the word 'sheol'! Are they trying to hide something important? Do they not want their readers to grasp the Jewish beliefs about the state of the dead, as taught by the rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai, which views were prevalent before Jesus, during Jesus' day, and after Jesus' day? It's only when you know what the Jews believed about the eternal part of man ending up in Sheol that Jesus' words in Luke 16:19-31 make sense! Note that the JWs have been told that nothing of what Jesus said there was actual, it was only a story (for everything Jesus said there contradicts what they believe about the state of the dead!)

Does this mean that Rev. 1:18 & 21:13 in the NWT just read 'death' and not 'death and Hades'? And does Rev 6:8 read "the one seated upon it had the name Death. And Death was closely following him"? Surely not?!

Yet it could be that the new 2013 edition of the NWT is a clear move towards supporting a development in their doctrine about life after death, which was not clear in the original NWT but which is now clearly supported by their 2013 edition. Yet I suspect that JWs will say they always believed that idea, in which case the translation came after the doctrine, and not before it.

"The Life And Times of Jesus The Messiah" by Alfred Edersheim (1971) Appendix XIX, On Eternal Punishment, according to the Rabbis and the New Testament" (see vol. II Book V ch. vi) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/e "Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" as in "The Works of Josephus" translated by William Whiston, 1980, page 637 http://www.ccel.org/search/fulltext/Josephus%27%20Discourse%20to%20the%20Greeks%20Concerning%20Hades

I'm sure many points can be discussed and brought forward, but it seems that it all boils down to the following:

As this 12-minute video on the history of the New World Translation explains, the New World Translation was the result of years of Bible study and was compiled to reflect the findings of that study. That means that the original language was carefully translated as to what it said, instead of doing so according to what the christian traditions had held for many years.

Subsequent editions, as far as I'm aware, have only seen adjustments in the areas of (1) use of God's name, especially in the Greek Scriptures, and (2) the use of common, modern-day language. For example, in Galatians 5:22, "long-suffering" was replaced with "patience". Although "long-suffering" covers the charge/idea better, in my opinion, it seems true to say that it's meaning is lost to the younger generations, so that "patience" is better used to cover the appropriate personal quality that is referred to here.

So no, the New World Translation did not lead to doctrinal change, but rather the opposite: it was the result of (progressing) doctrinal understanding that reflected in the way that the original text was translated.