It is possible to use the Simple Present to retell a personal story or an important historical event. We use this construction in narratives and history books to make events seem more alive and real to our readers. This tense is known as the historical present, also called the historic present, dramatic present, and narrative present.
Here is one example that I made up:
At the age of twenty I join the army, I learn about medicine and sport and help the injured to become stronger, fitter and regain their self confidence. Three years later, in 1980, I follow my calling and leave the army to become a swimming instructor in the Netherlands...
Note that the above paragraph is firmly established in the past, I even included a specific date,1980.
Richard Nordquist, linguist and former English professor, provides the following example,
"There is a famous story of President Abraham Lincoln, taking a vote at a cabinet meeting on whether to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. All his cabinet secretaries vote nay, whereupon Lincoln raises his right hand and declares: 'The ayes have it.'"
That's not to say the historical present is always correct, it has to be used with discretion. If we look at the OP's examples we see they are short and devoid of further context, using the historical present would serve little purpose.
1. I join Google in 2005. (HP)
2. I joined Google in 2005. (SP)
Without further context, some listeners might dismiss the first sentence as being ungrammatical (it's not) but by adding another clause things improve.
3. I pass my university exams and immediately join Google in 2005
Here is a similar version using the Simple Past
4. I earned my degree and immediately joined Google in 2005
To sum up, it is far more common (and preferable) to use the Simple Past for events and short factual statements that happened in the past, see examples 2 and 4. However, the Historical Present is a useful rhetorical device (to be used sparingly) that can evoke immediacy and tension in a story, be it real or make believe.