I've made this summary of Shem's lineage from Genesis 11:
believe the Biblical geneology in this chapter to be as plain as that of
Genesis 5. Nothing complex like that of Matthew 1 & Luke 3. If one
could be stated to live hundreds of years, there's no need to suggest
there are missing generations not mentioned in between as some would
like to imagine. Just as the fact that if numbers like 403 is mentioned,
I see no reason to feel there's any rounding of number used in the
account of any of their ages.
(From Genesis 17, we know that Abraham begat Isaac at age 100 years)
Shem Begat Arphaxad at 100. He lived 500 more years.
Arphaxad begat Salah at 35. Lived 403 more.
Salah begat Eber at 30. Lived 403 more.
Eber begat Peleg at 34. Lived 430 more.
Peleg begat Reu at 30. Lived 209 more.
Reu begat Serug at 32. Lived 207 more.
Serug begat Nahor at 30. Lived 200 more.
Nahor begat Terah at 29. Lived 119 more.
begat sons at 70 (Abraham at 130, for calculating his death and Abram's
depature at 75 in Gen. 12 and Stephen's account in Acts 7, thus putting
Abram not the first but perhaps the last, as agreed by Albert Barnes
and Matthew Henry but ignored by Keil & Delitzsch). He died at age
Abraham begat Isaac at 100. Died at 175. This makes Shem 490 when Isaac was born, 110 years before his death at 600.
course, according to the Targums (Jonathan & Jerusalem), thanks to
John Gill's note, the Jews believe that Isaac went to the "School of
Shem" in Genesis 24:62.
I reserve my opinion here. But beyond the
fact that Shem was still alive, I can only find it interesting if Shem,
Isaac's great great great....grandfather, had talked with Isaac. From
here to anything more creative, is beyond what is given.
course, I would also like to note that it is interesting how most would
bear children at around age 30. Except Shem, Terah and Abram. While it
could be possible Terah had children before the 3 brothers, I doubt it.
And Abram couldn't have children with Sara for she was barren until 90.
on a different topic, I do wander, since Genesis 5 accounts for much
older age to have children (I believe most were first born), if there is
a gap of an ideal age to bear children? If such gap was real, did the
ancients practise such out of wisdom? or something else? Granted, the
shorter men's lifespan becomes, the earlier they begat offsprings. But
what would stop the ancients from having their youngs earlier? I doubt
that biological maturity is the issue here.