OK, if you are a glutton for punishment:
Only ignorance or guile can explain why one would argue that all that a translation contains means all such is considered Scripture, vs what constitutes the Protestant Bible of 66 books of Scripture (which contextually was the issue, vs what may be considered merely fit to read).
Based upon your presumption then Luther considered the Deuteros to be Scripture since he included most of these books in his Bible - between the Old and New Testaments. Thus these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books.
You could have simply accessed the documented WP page on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha:
“Likewise the English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled “Books called Apocrypha”, or just “Apocrypha” at the running page header.[38] following the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly.”
“These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.”
“All [}Protestant] English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew’s Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section.”
“All King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha,[42] though separately to denote them as not equal to Scripture proper, as noted by Jerome in the Vulgate, to which he gave the name, “The Apocrypha.”[43] In 1826,[44] the National Bible Society of Scotland petitioned the British and Foreign Bible Society not to print the Apocrypha,[45] resulting in a decision that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. They reasoned that not printing the Apocrypha within the Bible would prove to be less costly to produce.[46][47] Since that time most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.”
These the 66 book Prot canon is shown to have been overall universally settled early on, more so than that of Catholicism which claims a universally settled canon from the 4th century.
Your only argument then is you asked “where does the Protestant Bible of 66 books show up?,” versus where does the Protestant canon of 66 books show up, which is simply sophistry, or ignorance, since canonicity was the issue.
Thus once again your posts have earned the title of “trolling,” and fit to be ignored.
Bye.