This includes the ancients. Do you really think they weren't smart enough to say... "Hey look, Joshua just died... maybe it has something to do with all the red liquid stuff that came out of him. I mean he was perfectly normal before it all started flowing out of him." It is only natural that they would conclude that an individuals life is dependent on the amount of blood they have.
Im sure not everyone died due to blood loss. People who where hung or stoned or drowned did not die due to blood loss. So i dont think you could say thats why the bible writers wrote that 'life is in the blood' there must have been more too it then that.
The problem you are having here is that you refuse to accept that life is more than just the amount of blood something has. Rather than accepting that perhaps you were a little presumptuous in that observation, you would prefer to make yourself look the greater fool by making statements like the one above.
The bible view is that blood is sacred to God. Can you prove otherwise?
There is no magic wishy-washy "life force," in the blood or otherwise. This is a decidedly primitive view of life taken from a culture with only the most basic understanding of life and the human body.
and yet they had far more advanced hygiene and disease control practices then we learnt after hundreds of years of scientific achievement