Sure, any Reader of Shakespeaare's woks can tell you that, as well as what the chages were so the meanings of the words at the time can be taken into account when reviewing his writings, or performance of his play.
As far as inconsequential matteres are concerned, standardization of spelling wof the word souns misprints, etc. were all accomplished by 1769, after careful scrutiny over a 60-year period from the first 1611 printing.
But this is just obfuscation, and I'm not going to waste time with you dodging the main issue, which is the value of modern versions to the Spirit-guided Bible student.
Re whether the translators had a dictionary at hand for their work:
Are you sure about that?
From Wiki's "Dictionary"
The first purely English alphabetical dictionary was A Table Alphabeticall, written by English schoolteacher Robert Cawdrey in 1604. The only surviving copy is found at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. This dictionary, and the many imitators which followed it, was seen as unreliable and nowhere near definitive. Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield was still lamenting in 1754, 150 years after Cawdrey's publication, that it is "a sort of disgrace to our nation, that hitherto we have had no… standard of our language; our dictionaries at present being more properly what our neighbors the Dutch and the Germans call theirs, word-books, than dictionaries in the superior sense of that title."
My dear Brother, you've got to come to terms with the issues of lower and higher text criticism. I don't know that you have much of a defense for the NASV exept that it was a sincere attempt with the wrong result. There are many that are able to rightly divide the Word of Truth, but the textual (non)criticism issue wrongly divides the brethren, as Westcott, Hort, and their sycophants found out.
Your credibility on this issue is toast.