"Come Hell or high water" vs "Lord willing and the creek don't rise"
Recently I've wondered about two idioms which have a strange relationship.
Come Hell or high water
and
Lord willing and the creek don't rise
- Grammatical accuracy, alternative formulations, and questionable folk etymologies, and literal meanings aside, why do these two phrases (often used interchangably) have such different implications?
My thoughts so far have centered around the former being an expression of an internal locus of control (i.e. I will make this happen) and the latter of an external locus of control (i.e. I hope this won't not happen).
- Why does the more apparently positive formulation reference Hell while the less (certainly) positive one mentions the 'Lord?'
"Come Hell or high water" anticipates the possibility of adverse conditions and appropriately groups those with Hell, while "Lord willing and the creek don't rise" anticipates positive conditions (adverse conditions held at bay) and that is appropriately paired with an appeal to G-d.
They are similar in that they reference similar adverse conditions and I think you've correctly identified the distinction between them and appropriate context for each.
They don't really mean the same thing.
Come hell or high water
That means it will get done no matter what.
God willing [and the crick don't rise]
Whereas that means it will get done only if something doesn't prevent it.
If hell comes then you've got to oppose it to get into heaven. But on the contrary, if something is God's will then you have to let it happen.
So really the first is saying "not even the devil can stop me" whereas the second is saying "God will decide if this happens".
Similarly with the reference to rivers. The first defies the river, the second acquiesces to it.
These phrases, therefore, are opposite in meaning.