Sorry, but this is not nearly true.
Try reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman (Harper 2005). There is no such thing as the new testament in original Greek. There are many, many thousands of Greek fragments of new testament documents. Many say different things. Some contradict each other. Attempts to create a Greek new testament were first made in the middle ages, using the only ones at hand to the compiler and obviously missing the thousands that were not on hand.
The author of Misquoting Jesus was a dedicated Christian graduate of the Moody Bible Institute who studied the new testament Greek scriptures in great detail before realizing that there is no authoritative body of writing and eventually losing his faith.
Some of the most famous verses in the New Testament do not appear in any of the original documents written in the first few hundred years after Christ but were instead added later. These include 1 John 5:7, the only reference in the new testament to the trinity (father, son and holy spirit). Other late additions include Jesus's statement that only those who are without sin should cast the first stone, Jesus's sweat falling like blood, the cup of wine being the new covenant in his blood, the signs of casting out demons and speaking in tongues, and the handling of snakes. Even the reference to Jesus rising into heaven after his resurrection is not to be found in the original documents.
Some of the original documents reveal some interesting debates in the early church. For example, was Jesus a man who suffered and then became God, or was he God all along? Depending upon how you see it, the crucifixion can be seen as a bad weekend for someone knowing he was already immortal rather than some sort of great sacrifice. Different factions in the early church had different feelings about this, and when they wrote their versions of the scriptures, they made subtle changes that reflected their beliefs. Thus, anyone holding to any of the various versions of this debate can point to "original" Greek documents to support a position. Only one version eventually made it into the currently accepted Bible.
Another controversy is the role of Jews in the crucifixion. Most scholars believe the full scale blaming of the Jews for the crucifixion, so clearly emphasized in Mel Gibson's movie, is a fabrication based on the early need to portray the religion as not being in conflict with Roman authority. Without going into detail here, the story makes absolutely no sense to anyone with any understanding of the laws and customs of that time period. The Romans would not bow to the pressure of a people they had conquered and impose a Roman punishment on someone whom they had found guiltless at trial. They allowed religious freedom, and if they were under the belief that the Jewish authorities held Jesus guilty of a regious wrong, they would have turned him over for a Jewish punishment--stoning.
Similarly, the Old Testament in Hebrew is a collection of scraps from different time periods in history that were eventually put together into one volume. The problems and inconsistencies have been well documented, but I am running out of time here.
Thus, the old and new testaments provide a comforting simplicity only to those who know nothing about their origins.
