You say the Bible was inspired by God. Back up that assertion with proof.

The demand is legitimate, and the first honest move is to admit that inspiration is a theological claim rather than a laboratory result. What can be done is to show why the claim is reasonable, and to be clear about what kind of argument it is.

1. Define the claim before defending it. "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Timothy 3:16) claims that God is the ultimate source of the text, spoken through human authors who were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). It does not claim dictation, and it does not claim that every copy is flawless. Much of the objection is aimed at a doctrine nobody holds.

2. Notice that no one reasons from neutral ground. The demand for proof assumes a neutral reason that inspects evidence without commitments. There is no such thing, on either side; the skeptic's confidence in naturalism shapes what he will count as evidence just as the Christian's does. That does not make both irrational, but it does mean the argument is between worldviews, not between reason and faith.

3. Turn the standard on itself. If only what can be proven may be believed, that principle cannot be proven and must be abandoned. The demand for proof, taken absolutely, refutes itself. So the real question is not "prove it" but "what does the total evidence make most probable," which is answerable.

4. Its treatment of its own heroes is strange. If the Bible were a human product designed to legitimate its authors, it would flatter them. Instead it records David's adultery and murder, Peter's denial, the disciples' cowardice, and the nation's repeated apostasy. Documents that embarrass their own founders at that level are doing something other than propaganda.

5. Its unity across centuries is unusual. Roughly forty authors, from shepherds to kings, writing across something like fifteen centuries in three languages, produce one coherent story running from creation to redemption. Anthologies do not behave that way. This is an argument from a pattern, not a proof, and it should be weighed as such.

6. Prophecy, stated carefully. Christians point to Isaiah 53's pierced and despised servant, to Micah 5:2 naming Bethlehem, and to the pattern of a Davidic deliverer. Interpreters debate which texts are directly predictive and which are typological, so this argument should be made with care. Overclaiming here has done real damage to the case.

7. The text itself is unusually well attested. Daniel Wallace and the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts have catalogued thousands of Greek manuscripts, far more than survive for any classical author. That does not prove inspiration, but it removes the fallback objection that we cannot know what the Bible says.

8. Jesus staked his own authority on it. He answered temptation with "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4) and said that "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). If his resurrection is a real event, his view of the text comes with it, which is why the historical question matters so much here.

9. Transformation is evidence of another kind. "The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12). People across centuries, cultures, and classes have been morally reordered by this book, including people who began as its enemies. A merely human anthology does not produce that effect repeatedly and predictably.

10. Honest limits, and honest disagreement. Inspiration is not demonstrable by a single argument, and the evidence is cumulative. Christians themselves differ about the scope of inerrancy, about genre in Genesis, and about which arguments are strongest. Anyone who tells you the case is a closed proof has oversold it.

What is offered here is not a proof that compels, but a cumulative case that has to be answered rather than dismissed. The strongest single consideration is the resurrection, because if it happened, the question of Jesus's view of Scripture is settled along with it.

Sources: Josh McDowell; Evidence That Demands a Verdict; Daniel B. Wallace; Michael J. Kruger; Canon Revisited.

Related challenges:
• The existence of so many Christian denominations indicates the Bible to be inherently unclear. If truly God’s revelation, could we not expect that He would reveal Himself clearly?
• So you believe in a book full of contradictions, one that endorses slavery, incest, murder, drowning babies, genocide and stoning homosexuals?
• Now if Jesus is God and God cannot be tempted, does it not follow that Jesus cannot be tempted? Yet Matthew 4 clearly presents the temptation of Christ, and thus embroils us in another BIBLICAL CONTRADICTION. Doesn’t it?!