Translation:Iuppiter destroys the building by wind.
As a general construction "destroyed by" + noun, is always possible (destroyed by love, destroyed by fear, etc...)
Maybe "destroyed by the winds" could be added. It's right in the grammar and in the meaning, but is less emphatic and grandiose than "destroyed by wind".
It's hard to find examples in the active voice (destroys and not destroyed) as only God or a supernatural force can "destroy by...".. So it's a kind of sentence really exceptional and unusual.
"God destroys by fire" is okay. God destroys by flood" also. So God could also destroys by wind. (another element).
In the Bible, both "destroy by" and "destroy with" can be found.
And I really think both don't have the same meaning at all.
Destroying with water = using the water(s) to destroy something, with the "help" of water.
Destroying by water = completely destroyed by the use of the water. The water is the weapon. A massive destruction weapon.
It's the reason why both expressions are in the Bible. Not the same meaning.
And it's also the reason why people think it's strange, usually an element is not used as a weapon of massive extinction.
"Sodom and Gomorrah, notoriously sinful cities in the biblical book of Genesis, destroyed by “sulfur and fire” because of their wickedness"
(Not "destroyed with")
It’s a contraction of “Father Jove” - Iovis pater. Iuppiter in the nominative and vocative; in other cases of Jupiter we have Iovem, Iovis, Iovi, Iove (acc. gen. dat. abl. respectively)
Various forms of the Latin and Greek descend from PIE *dyḗws ph₂tḗr. The Latin forms in this instance are not taken from Greek.
I could not say whether it was common to all Indo-Europeans but in several IE languages there are words which reflect dyḗws and which are applied to a deity: Greek Ζεύς, Latin Iu(piter), Sanskrit dyauḥ "sky" or the god Dyauḥ. Their etymological meaning is "diurnal sky", as they are derived from the PIE root dyeu- "to shine". There are some other data in this article:
By firing squad, by means of fire, with fire, not necessarily in that order of preference. I’d probably say that fire destroyed something in any case, rather than use the passive.
"Destroy by wind" is unidiomatic in English and should not be the preferred option in the word bank. I think the problem is actually in the word "destroy." What I mean is that the idiom in English is that when the verb destroy has a subject, the subsequent preposition "with." The house was destroyed by fire. (no subject) He destroyed the house with fire. (subject) But also: He destroyed the house by setting it on fire. (participial phrase)