This is a relatively common overstatment. While I cannot, of course, put a precise percentage on it, I would guess that truth is non-absolute, or relative, in greater than 50% of circumstances. As a rudimentary example (from which you can extrapolate any number of additional examples), what is the "true" way to join two boards together at right angles?
The truth would be that the two boards can be joined, not in the how.
Interesting point!
The "true way" is that which results in the final position of the boards being at exactly 90 degrees (at right angles) to each other. The "truth" is in the observable result ("at right angles -- as specified"). Nothing need be said about the method -- or "process" -- to make the statement "true".
Indeed, in Genesis, the Creator said next to nothing about the processes He used; all He mentioned was the truth of the results. ("And God said, "Let there be light.")
As a scientist and a Christian, I am greatly offended by simpleminded and dogmatic "Creationists" (yes, I am talking about you!) who insist that they can dictate the process (and timescale) of creation based on a scriptural "outline" that does not describe process. Even mor offensive is their penchant for "dissing" the works of anyone who uses their Creator-given intellect to try to "fill in the blanks" with understanding of how the Universe has reached its present state.
OTOH, I am similarly offended by "scientific observers" who ignore the truth of Scripture, ("God created the heavens and the earth".) and who insist that their speculations (theories) as to how the Universe developed alone constitute "truth".
Neither have a corner on "truth" -- especially those who stake their "faith" on medieval-minded misinterpretation of a 1611 multi-mis-translation and who sneer at others who rejoice in the revealed truths of actual observation.
...listening for the "hit dogs" to whine... ;-}