Obviously many individuals who take such an approach are those who believe that their is moral, philosophical, and/or spiritual value in the Bible, but do not believe it is strictly speaking true in every statement it makes ר"ל.
There are others however, who affirm that the Torah is divinely inspired yet feel that the issue of God changing nature is somewhat problematic. The Rambam in his Moreh Nevuchim 2:29 writes:
Our sages, however, said very strange things as regards miracles; they are found in Bereshit Rabba, and in Midrash Koheleth, namely, that the miracles are to some extent also natural; for they say, when God created the Universe with its present physical properties, He made it part of these properties, that they should produce certain miracles at certain times, and the sign of a prophet consisted in the fact that God told him to declare when a certain thing will take place, but the thing itself was effected according to the fixed laws of Nature. If this is really the meaning of the passage referred to, it testifies to the greatness of the author, and shows that he held it to be impossible that there should be a change in the physical properties of Nature, or a change in the will of God [as regards the physical properties of things] after they have once been established. He therefore assumes, e.g., that God gave the waters the property of joining together, and of flowing in a downward direction, and separating only at a time when the Egyptians were drowned, and only in a particular place. (Friedlander translation, page 210, bold mine).
The Rambam sees, as I understand it, the notion that God would circumvent nature to be equivalent (or at least uncomfortably similar) to God changing His mind about the decision to make that law of nature. Personally while I do not claim to have a clear understanding of the Rambam's words (especially in the larger context of his thought) I would make three tentative observations about this concern:
It seems to me very likely that this concern is heavily influenced by the fact noted elsewhere in Moreh Nevuchim that according to Aristotle's philosophy the supernatural is not possible. While the Rambam rejects this as untenable, he clearly felt that Aristotle's position (in general) needed to be reckoned with, doing so being a major goal of Moreh Nevuchim. Aristotle's philosophy in these regards has zero weight bizman hazeh.
I do not believe that most of us would intuitively feel that God overriding the laws of nature is entirely inconsistent with God not changing. To do so would require us to presume God made the laws of nature with the intent not to over-ride them, a presumption I have not seen support for. Conversely, insofar as God is outside/above time I'm not certain that one can make a theological cogent distinction between God changing/superseding/overriding the laws of nature versus "pre-programming" exceptions.
The Rambam does not say the events in question are entirely identical with natural events (though it seems reasonable that he would tend towards such explanations when feasible). He says they laws of nature where designed with these events intended. That would mean that while "strictly speaking" the splitting of the Yam Suf, for example, might have been in accordance with the laws of nature, we would not be able to empirically identify and replicate the "property" of water which allows it to act in such a manner. That is to say that for all practical, scientific, purposes a miracle such as the splitting of the Yam Suf would be supernatural. The way that the Rambam is speaking of the "laws of nature" would be very difficult to translate into contemporary scientific discourse, it would seem to me. So while there is certainly similarities, the Rambam is not really taking the same position as those who have extreme materialistic/naturalistic explanations about various miracles we find posited today.