>I have found three Nathan Abernathys in the pre-1850 US Census records in the Lincoln County area.
> Robert (brother to your David) and Sarah Abernathy had children, Robert, William, John, Charles (from whom I am descended), Miles, Lucy, Smith, Sarah, Amy, and Nathan.
I cannot substantiate one of the children you mention of Robert (4th) and Sarah Abernathy: there is no mention in that Robert's will of a son named Miles so unless someone can produce contemporary evidence directly linking a Miles Abernathy to that particular Robert, I will grant all the rest of the children's names you listed, but not son Miles.
> This Nathan I have never found a marriage certificate but in one of the early census, it shows he has a wife (around his age).
Very early census records, but consistant from 1810 to 1840 inclusive. I am willing to assume that the Nathan found in Captain Dellinger's District on the 1810 census was the same Nathan found in Burke County in 1820, 1820, and 1840, and that he was probably a son of the 4th Robert. He may or may not have had a son Seth who is buried in Mt Ruhama Baptist Church Cemetery in Catawba County NC, but we have no DNA evidence to rule on that particular point one way or another. We do have DNA data on two Abernethy males who claim descent from the 4th Robert via son Robert and wife Ann Nance (or Nantz). We do not have DNA evidence on anyone who claims descent from any other listed son of the 4th Robert, but both of the descendants of his son Robert and wife Ann Nance clearly show a close relationship with the profile that is developing for the Robert Abernathy Lineage, as opposed to profiles that are developing for other lineages.
For the Burke County Nathan Abernathy, I can identify neither a wife or children, nor am I sure that the Nathan Abernathy shown on the 1800 Lincoln County census is the same one that is found in 1820 in Burke County.
> What most researchers are trying to put the Nathan that married Eve as son of a Nathan Abernathy who married Emaline Burk which is a huge mistake.
The Nathan who married Emaline Burke was _much_ too young to have been a parent of the Nathan who died and is buried in Bartow County GA!
> This was the son of Seth and Polly Abernathy and I don't think it is the same family.
I don't think it's the same family, either. But I don't have enough evidence to be sure. Yet.
> I don't know who the Nathan that married Eve Cline was a son of, but it has been speculated that this Nathan is son of the Nathan that I have not identified his wife.
We have DNA results on one individual whose paper trail seems to trace straight back to a grandson of Nathan and Eve Cline named Larkin Abernathy. Alas, this individual's DNA is not at all compatible with the Robert Abernathy Lineage, so _IF_ his paper trail is correct and _IF_ the Nathan listed in the 4th Robert's will was, in fact, a parent of the Nathan who married Eve Cline, present DNA evidence does not support that premis. Unfortunately, we have yet to persuade any other male who claims descent from Nathan and Eve to have his DNA tested.
It is, of course, considerably risky to base a conclusion (especially one that's unpopular) on what is essentially only one data point, but that's all we have at present, and one reason why more DNA evidence is needed from all possible Abernerthy/Abernathy lines, regardless of which Ancestor the living volunteers are presumed to descend from.
> The trouble with the tombstone of Nathan that married Eve Cline is it says he was born 1790 but 1870 Bartow County, GA. Census says he was 86 which would made him older than the tombstone.
It might be that the Bartow County GA Nathan's tombstone was only erected recently, instead of well before 1900. I seem to recall on early visits to the Old Macedonia Cemetery website that they weren't even sure precisely where Nathan and his wife were buried. Which might argues for no extant tombstomb dating from his death. As for census ages, I generally take most of them with a grain of salt if there are too many discrepencies in tracking the individual from one census to another, as is the case post-1850 with this individual. I do know that said Nathan was listed in 1850 as aged 60, and I know that the age on the 1870 seems reasonably clear and un-smudged, but I still question it's veracity.