I have to disagree. Time does not have a "start" but events always have starts within time. The definition of a creation, that it is something that now exists that did not previously exist, are necessarily events that transpire within time. Saying (truthfully) that creation events are not (usually) "ex nihilo," does not alter this, because as I discussed in my article, "Aristotle's Theory of Change," https://medium.com/me/stats/post/1aa67bdad5b7, change is properly understood as the alteration of the qualities of objects, but alterations that are from what was not the case to what is now the case must necessarily exist within time.

I agree that time and space are not substances, either in a classical or a Newtonian sense. I go with Henri Bergson's description of time as able to be understood as experienced duration in distinction from "scientific" or "clock" time. Nothing in current theoretical physics contradicts that, and I'd argue it confirms Bergson. My hunch is that time is a side effect of motion/energy, but that's a very complicated topic. I think space can be considered along similar lines to what I've said about time.

However, since my article was detailing Plotinus's philosophy, the issue of space and time that he addressed must be understood within his cultural timeframe. He had two options: creation of the visible world at a certain point in time or an eternal world without beginning in time. He choose the latter and described it as an emmanation.