It doesn't really matter how you want to wriggle out of it, you're saying "Erlang is what OO is meant to be, but it's not OO".
You realise that makes no sense right? If it's not OO, then it's not what OO.
You're caught up on such random vagaries that you completely miss the point of OO - to be able to think about systems as objects, and classes of objects because that's an effective way to map to the real world. Hence why we have the pillars of OO - the very definitions of what an OO language has to support to be able to support object oriented analysis, design, and programming.