Sea Breeze, it should first be said that neither of the exerpts that you quote are referring to Acts 20:28. While Ignatius was familiar with some of the Pauline epistles and probably Matthew, he makes no reference to the book of Acts, so there is no basis to suppose Ignatius supports a particular reading simply because he uses the phrase "the blood of God".
Secondly, I cannot find your quotation of Polycarp in any of his writings and think you have simply confused this with a different translation of Ignatius. If you could indicate where your quotation of Polycarp comes from then we could take it more seriously.
Finally, the authenticity of Ignatius' letters has been in doubt since the sixteenth century. There are three recensions of his letters and while most scholars accept the middle recension as authentic, others argue that these are forgeries written in the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The only surviving copy of the middle recension is from a codex of the eleventh century and the post-Nicene language in the Letter to the Ephesians, supposedly written ten years after the death of the apostles, makes me very doubtful that what we have from the eleventh century has not undergone considerable recension since it was written.
I should also note that you do not address my point that the understanding that Acts 20:28 (and Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians 1:1) refers to "the blood of God" is the heresy of patripassianism. Patripassianism teaches that God the Father had become directly incarnate in Christ and so the blood of Christ can be referred to as the blood of God. Is this your understanding?