Heh. "True", huh? That's what you're looking for?
Seriously, there are a couple of factors to consider:
1 - "truth" and its cousin, "true" are subjective to the individual. In other words, truth is what you perceive to be fact, but often is either:
a - missing information and therefore, not entirely accurate -- even to the point of being a half-truth
b - appears to be something that it is not -- perhaps a straw man imitation of the original.
2 - a translation is only as good as the translators can make it at the time of translation.
Our language is constantly changing and therefore, words that are defined one way often come to be defined another way. A good example is the word, "gay" which originally meant (almost exclusively so), "happy" or "joyful". It was even used as a man or woman's name. Today, the word has lost those meanings and now one thinks only of homosexually-oriented people. While that might be an extreme, another example is "square", which used to refer to honesty and integrity, but deteriorated into a denigrating word for a person with similar characteristics (honest, et al). But even today, that word is no longer part of the common vocabulary.
In other words, there is no one "true" translation. All are subject to the varagies of our language. For that reason, more recent translations, which often reflect trends in our society, having use for only so long. And those which try to be politically correct are often a disaster, rejected almost immediately as being "untrue" to the original language.
Some translations aren't translations at all, but are subjective to the translator and their ideas of what is correct. These are also short lived.
So what makes a translation popular and why, of all translations, has the King James (in its current form) remained so popular over time? First, one must understand that it was _not_ translated by King James (who leaned toward Roman Catholicism), but by 47 Church of England scholars. Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the "Authorized" (King James) Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently), but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word equivalence.
Perhaps it is this "translation" of ideas and concepts, using variations of words, that appeals to so many English-speaking peoples.
In obedience to their instructions, the translators provided no marginal interpretation of the text, but in some 8,500 places a marginal note offers an alternative English wording.[105] The majority of these notes offer a more literal rendering of the original (introduced as "Heb", "Chal", "Gr" or "Lat"), but others indicate a variant reading of the source text (introduced by "or"). Some of the annotated variants derive from alternative editions in the original languages, or from variant forms quoted in the fathers. More commonly, though, they indicate a difference between the original language reading and that in the translators' preferred recent Latin versions.
Of critical note, in the old testament the translators render the Tetragrammaton YHWH by "the LORD" (in later editions in small capitals as Lord),[108] or "the LORD God" (for Adonai YHWH, "Lord YHWH"),[109] and in four places by "IEHOVAH" (Exod. 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4). Yeah, that's an "I" (eye), and not a "J".
My preference is toward the King James Version, mostly because I was raised Episcopalian (the American Church of England) and am familiar with its language. There are shortcomings, but I also have copies of the Greek (Konine New Testament) and Hebrew (Old Testament) versions and use an interlinear rendering to aid in my understanding of the original text.
But I do not consider any to be a "true" or more accurately, "pure" translation for another reason: We don't have any original text manuscripts, and the copies that are available (including textual fragments) are not consistent, demonstrating copyist and interpretive errors have been introduced over the ages.
TDs expected from people who believe that one translation (usually the KJV) is the "god-honest" uncorrupted "Word of God" and is complete and without error.
Add: Heh. Yes, the evangelical (and fundamentalist) crowd make claims that one version is true and all others are bad translations, but in all honesty, I don't count myself among that group. Neither do a lot of others. And so you don't get the rampant rhetoric, but a more responsible response to your question.
Many (if not most) evangelical fundamentalists consider the "true" translation to be the "King James" version.