Interesting observation about Adam naming the animals and having also named "the serpent". It doesn't say Adam named angels though; so it doesn't seem he would have named Satan (Lucifer); at least at the same time as Adam had named the other animals.
Although I agree with you; that it sounds reasonable that Satan would not have been "happy" about being named by Adam. Adam did rank above him in the order of created things because the only entity that ranked above Adam was God.
Now in the end "Adam" does name "Satan" / "Lucifer" because in the penning of Scripture human language does require some descriptor (name) of this entity. So did Adam name Satan? In a round about way; yes.
I looked up the word "animal" in the Hebrew in Genesis 2:20. It literally means "living of the land". Which would have been everything, including plants. (I wonder how long that took? LOL)
I did notice something in Genesis (also comparing this to the atonement) about "the breath of life". (This is covered somewhat in this thread = the breath of life makes things alive.) Yet this realization brought me to the question as to whether or not angels are actually considered "life". Now they are definitely not "carbon based" if they are indeed considered "life forms".
Now it is a possibility that they are "life" forms because something I once encountered in studying Ezekiel described cherubim and seraphim as having "dead" bodies. I think what the Hebrew meant was that though these were obedient entities; they were still subject to death because of the fall. Which means that if Christ had not atoned for carbon based life; even the obedient angels would have perished in the destruction of the cosmos. So although Christ did not die for angels; the obedient ones are still eternal recipients of the consequences of the atonement (such as non human life is also).
So yes, interesting observation about naming the animals.
And here's where Adam gets in trouble.
Adam and Eve were commanded by God to keep and care for the garden. That didn't just require picking up fruit that fell off of trees. It's actually a military term meaning to defend. Which obviously leads to the question of how did the serpent get into the garden to begin with. They obviously weren't "doing their job" in that respect.
So if Adam knew this serpent was deceptively cunning; that doesn't say a whole lot of positive about Adam. If he had not enough interest in attempting to prevent Eve from being deceived; at the very least, he didn't really love her.
Now was Adam "complicit" in the scheme (even if non verbally so). That raises a whole other set of questions about when actually was the fall? We often interpret it as "at the point they ate the fruit". Their consequence was actually felt at that point. But remember when God said to Cain "sin crouches at your door"; before he actually killed Abel? Sin obviously manifests in the heart before it manifests in the physical world; and I think this is the reason Jesus made the statements about adultery and lust.
So.... interesting.
I'm not sure why you quoted the verses in Timothy; and what they have anything to do with Adam's accountability?